Appellate Division, Second Department · September 16, 2026 · 2026 NY Slip Op 05306
A preconception agreement found for the second child; standing under Brooke S.B. reversed
Matter of Kelly C. v Chaya E.
Read the official decision: 2026 NY Slip Op 05306
Holding The Appellate Division reversed the Family Court’s determination that a preconception agreement did not exist for the second child, finding that the record supported the existence of such an agreement at the time of conception. Consequently, the non-biological partner established standing to seek parental access, and the matter was remitted for a best interests hearing.
Why it matters
Clarifies the standard for determining when a preconception agreement terminates in the context of multiple children born from the same donor and relationship.
Reinforces that standing under Matter of Brooke S.B. is a threshold issue distinct from the best interests of the child analysis.
The court’s words
the evidence did not support a determination that the parties' preconception agreement terminated prior to N. E.'s conception
2026 NY Slip Op 05306, at the official text
an inquiry into the best interests of the children was not required to resolve the threshold determination of whether Kelly has standing
2026 NY Slip Op 05306, at the official text
the parties entered into a preconception agreement to conceive and co-parent R. E. and, in effect, that Kelly established standing
2026 NY Slip Op 05306, at the official text
| Court | Appellate Division, Second Department |
|---|---|
| Decided | September 16, 2026 |
| Citation | 2026 NY Slip Op 05306 |
| Area of law | Family Law |
| Week | Week ending September 19, 2026 |
| Official text | Official decision: 2026 NY Slip Op 05306 |
| Publication status | Slip opinions are uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. |
| Source feed | New York slip opinion page |
| Law Watch record id | 532 |
Same court and area in the last 180 days
- Foley v Foley2026 NY Slip Op 05283
The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s order holding the defendants in civil contempt for failing to pay a distributive award, as the defendants failed to refute the plaintiff’s showing of noncompliance with a clear and unequivocal mandate. The court declined to consider issues raised on the appeal that could have been raised in a previously dismissed cross-appeal.
- Cywiak v Packman2026 NY Slip Op 05276
The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the divorce complaint because a prior stipulation filed with the court constituted documentary evidence that utterly refuted the plaintiff’s allegation of a valid marriage. The court further held that the plaintiff failed to establish any basis to vacate the stipulation.
- Brandford v Brandford2026 NY Slip Op 05270
The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s order holding the plaintiff in civil contempt for willfully failing to pay child support arrears and an equitable distribution award. The court found that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate financial inability to comply with the court orders, thereby justifying the contempt findings and associated incarceration directives.
- Barnard v Barnard2026 NY Slip Op 05264
The judgment of divorce was modified to award the defendant a 50% share of the plaintiff’s savings and checking accounts and to delete the retroactive child support award pending recalculation with appropriate credits for mortgage payments. The appellate court affirmed the maintenance award and counsel fees as a provident exercise of discretion.
- Graudins v Hunt2026 NY Slip Op 05168
The defendant lacked standing to enforce a stipulation requiring the decedent to maintain life insurance because the children, not the defendant, were the intended beneficiaries. Consequently, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s cross-motion to recover the policy value from the decedent’s estate.
Recommended citation
ESQ HQ, New York Law Watch, Matter of Kelly C. v Chaya E., 2026 NY Slip Op 05306 (Appellate Division, Second Department, September 16, 2026), https://esqhq.com/decisions/2026-ny-slip-op-05306/
How this record was made
Holding drafted by Law Watch’s in-house model, graded by three reviewers; every quotation verified word for word against the official text.
Read how Law Watch worksFeatured by Eric McAvey, November 14, 2026.