By Acosta, P.J., Renwick, Manzanet-Daniels, Singh, JJ. 9985. In re Lenora D., pet-res, v. Richard J.R., res-ap, Victoria L.H., res — George E. Reed, Jr., White Plains, for ap — Larry S. Bachner, New York, for res — Janet Neustaetter, The Children’s Law Center, Brooklyn (Laura Solecki of counsel), attorney for the child.—Order, Family County, Bronx County (Tamra Walker, Referee), entered on or about March 2, 2018, which, after a hearing, found that extraordinary circumstances existed to permit petitioner maternal grandmother to seek custody of the subject child, and granted the grandmother’s petition for sole custody of the child with visitation to the father, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Petitioner grandmother demonstrated the requisite extraordinary circumstances to establish her standing to seek custody of the child after her mother died unexpectedly (see Matter of Suarez v. Williams, 26 NY3d 440 [2015]; Domestic Relations Law §72[2][a]). For about four years before the mother’s death in 2017, the mother and the child had lived in the grandmother’s household, and the mother and grandmother together provided for all the child’s financial and other needs. In contrast, the father resided with the child for about two years after her birth, until the mother moved out with the child in about 2008. Thereafter, the father saw the child sporadically and provided minimal financial support (see Suarez, 26 NY3d at 450-451). Given the child’s need for stability in the aftermath of her mother’s sudden death, the grandmother met her burden of showing extraordinary circumstances (see id.; Roberta P. v. Vanessa J.P., 140 AD3d 457 [1st Dept 2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 904 [2016]; Matter of Danzy v. Jones-Moore, 54 AD3d 858 [2d Dept 2008]). The record also supports the finding that it is in the child’s best interests to be in the grandmother’s custody (see Matter of Bennett v. Jeffreys, 40 NY2d 543 [1976]). The grandmother has supported the child and provided a stable and loving home where the child is thriving and all of her needs are met (see Matter of Ruth L. v. Clemese Theresa J., 104 AD3d 554 [1st Dept 2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 860 [2013]). The child is fully bonded with the grandmother, who has provided her with financial and emotional support, especially after the mother’s death, and provided for all of her medical care and educational needs. We have considered the father’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. This constitutes the decision and order of the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
By Acosta, P.J., Renwick, Manzanet-Daniels, Singh, JJ. 9986. Sears Holdings Management Corp., etc., plf-res, v. Rockaway Realty Associates, LP, et al., def-ap — Marks, O’Neill, O’Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C., New York (Sydney A. Fetten of counsel), for ap — Bruckmann & Victory, LLP, New York (Richard J. Sprock of counsel), for res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carmen Victoria St. George, J.), entered October 30, 2018, which granted plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment as to liability for the third (breach of contract) and fourth (quantum meruit/unjust enrichment) causes of action, unanimously modified, on the law, to deny the motion as to the fourth cause of action, and to dismiss that cause of action, and otherwise affirmed, with costs, to be paid by defendants. Plaintiff met its burden on its motion for summary judgment for breach of contract by submitting admissible evidence, including the emails from Mr. Poyker, an employee of one of the defendants, that defendants’ refused to repair the interior of plaintiff’s store, which constituted a breach of the parties’ agreement. As defendants submitted no relevant admissible evidence in opposition to the motion, we affirm the grant of summary judgment for breach of contract in plaintiff’s favor (Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 560 [1980]). However, the fourth cause of action requires dismissal because it constitutes an indistinguishable dispute regarding the same operative facts as the claim for breach of contract (Goldstein v. CIBC World Mkts. Corp., 6 AD3d 295, 296 [1st Dept 2004]; see also Board of Mgrs. of Honto 88 Condominium v. Red Apple Child Dev. Ctr., a Chinese Sch., 160 AD3d 580, 581-582 [1st Dept 2018]). We have considered defendants’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. This constitutes the decision and order of the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
