Diane T. v. Lydia Tamelka T.

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Ruben A. Martino, J.), entered on or about February 27, 2013, which, after a hearing, dismissed petitioner grandmother’s article 6 petition for visitation of the subject children, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Initially, we reject petitioner’ contention that she had a right to assigned counsel pursuant to Family Ct Act § 262 (see Matter of Randolph W. v Commissioner of Social Servs., 105 AD3d 414 [1st Dept 2013], lv dismissed 21 NY3d 1034 [2013]).

Petitioner failed to demonstrate that she had standing to pursue visitation, or that visitation would be in the subject children’s best interests {see Domestic Relations Law § 72 [1]; Matter of E.S. v P.D., 8 NY3d 150 , 157 [2007]). Petitioner visited the subject children twice after their births, and was unable to demonstrate a sufficient existing relationship with them. She also failed to show that conditions exist where “equity would see fit to intervene” (Domestic Relations Law § 72 [1]; see Matter of Emanuel S. v Joseph E., 78 NY2d 178 , 182-183 [1991]).

Even assuming petitioner had standing, the evidence shows

Concur — Gonzalez, EJ., Saxe, DeGrasse, Richter and Clark, JJ.