You are here: / / Failure to Hold a Hearing on Mother’s Petition for Custody and Failure t...
,

Failure to Hold a Hearing on Mother’s Petition for Custody and Failure to Inform Father of Right to Counsel Required Reversal of Custody Determination

The Second Department determined Family Court’s failure to hold a hearing to determine the mother’s petition for custody, and the Court’s failure to advise the father that he had the right to counsel, required reversal of the grant of custody to the mother.  In the Matter of Savoca v Bellofatto, 2012-02935, Docket No V-22033-11, Second Dept 3-6-13

 

You might also like
UPON THE PRIOR APPEAL, THE SECOND DEPARTMENT MADE A FINDING THAT RESPONDENT SUFFERED FROM SEXUAL SADISM DISORDER AND REMITTED THE MATTER; SUPREME COURT IGNORED THE FINDING AND HELD A NEW NONJURY TRIAL ON ALL ISSUES; SUPREME COURT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO IGNORE THE SECOND DEPARTMENT’S MANDATE (SECOND DEPT).​
RADIOLOGIST WAS NOT QUALIFIED TO EXPRESS AN OPINION ON THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE DEFORMITY WHICH WAS ALLEGED TO HAVE RESULTED FROM A FAILURE TO DIAGNOSE A FRACTURE. 
No Ambiguity in Contract; No Resort to Extrinsic Evidence
THE INSTALLATION OF LARGE INDVIDUAL LETTERS FOR A SIGN ON THE FRONT SOFFIT OF A BUILDING CONSTITUTED “ALTERING” THE BUILDING TO WHICH LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) APPLY; BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL NOTICE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION OF THE SOFFIT (WHICH COLLAPSED), THE LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
THE SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTOR WAS NOT LIABLE FOR PASSIVE OMISSIONS, FAILURE TO SALT ICY AREA DOES NOT CONSTITUTE THE LAUNCHING OF AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM.
PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN AN UNPROTECTED TRENCH CAVED IN AND COLLAPSED; THE ABSENCE OF ANY SAFETY DEVICES, LIKE A SAFETY RAILING, VIOLATED LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) (SECOND DEPT).
THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE DEFENDANT KNEW THE COMPLAINANT WAS A 14-YEAR-OLD RUNAWAY WHEN SHE STAYED AT HIS HOUSE; THE EVIDENCE OF KIDNAPPING WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT).
A PERMANENT INJUNCTION IS NOT APPROPRIATE WHERE PLAINTIFFS DO NOT ALLEGE ANY NONECONOMIC DAMAGES (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Record-Keeping Was a Condition Precedent to Insurance Coverage Erroneous Discharge of Mortgage Can Be Set Aside Where No Detrimental Relia...