You are here: / / No Constructive Emancipation or Abandonment

No Constructive Emancipation or Abandonment

In affirming Family Court’s denial of father’s petition to modify child support, the Second Department explained the doctrine of constructive emancipation, noting that a child’s reluctance to see a parent is not abandonment:

The father claimed that he should no longer be required to pay support because the mother had alienated the child from him. Under the doctrine of constructive emancipation, a child of employable age who actively abandons the noncustodial parent by refusing all contact and visitation may forfeit any entitlement to support…. However, a child’s reluctance to see a parent is not abandonment…. There is no evidence in the record that the child has refused all contact and visitation with the father.  Matter of Grucci v Villanti, 2013 NY Slip Op 05209, 2nd Dept 7-10-13

 

You might also like
Petitioner, Who Was Sentenced to Death in Federal Court, Could Not Be Declared “Civilly Dead” Pursuant to the Civil Rights Law—Paternity Petition Should Not Have Been Dismissed
THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE DEFENDANT DEPARTMENT STORE SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARE THE PAINT USED ON THE PARKING LOT SURFACE BECAME SLIPPERY WHEN WET AND WAS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR PEDESTRIAN-TRAFFIC AREAS (SECOND DEPT). ​
Jury Verdict Finding No Negligence Reversed on Appeal/Article 16 Defenses Re: Negligence of Non-Party Allowed
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER STOCKING SHELVES WAS PART OF A LARGER RENOVATION PROJECT AND THEREFORE A COVERED ACTIVITY UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) (SECOND DEPT).
THE PROOF THAT PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL AT A BUS STOP, WHERE THE CITY IS RESPONSIBLE FOR KEEPING THE AREA SAFE, AS OPPOSED TO THE SIDEWALK ABUTTING DEFENDANT’S PROPERTY, WHERE DEFENDANT IS RESPONSIBLE, WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REARGUE MERELY REPEATED HER EARLIER ARGUMENTS AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE COURT HAD OVERLOOKED OR MISUNDERSTOOD FACTS OR LAW; THE MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF-STUDENT’S FINGER WAS CAUGHT IN A DOOR SHUT BY ANOTHER STUDENT ACTING AS A LUNCH MONITOR; THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE SCHOOL PROVIDED ADEQUATE SUPERVISION (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENSE COUNSEL DID NOT INVESTIGATE ALIBI EVIDENCE, DID NOT OBJECT TO EVIDENCE WHICH HAD BEEN RULED OFF LIMITS, AND DID NOT IMPEACH THE COMPLAINANT WITH INCONSISTENT TESTIMONY, CONVICTION REVERSED (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

Family Court Had Jurisdiction But New York Not a Convenient Forum Family Offense Must Be Established by Fair Preponderance