You are here: / / Priority in Custody Disputes Given to Party Initially Awarded Custody

Priority in Custody Disputes Given to Party Initially Awarded Custody

The Second Department, in affirming Family Court’s denial of a motion to modify a stipulated custody arrangement, noted that priority is given to the parent who was initially awarded custody:

“A modification of an existing custody arrangement should be allowed only upon a showing of a sufficient change in circumstances demonstrating a real need for a change of custody in order to insure the child’s best interests” … . The best interests of the child are determined by a review of the totality of the circumstances … . In this regard, the court should consider whether the alleged changed circumstances indicate that one of the parties is unfit, the nature and quality of the relationships between the child and the parties, and the existence of a prior agreement … .

” Priority in custody disputes should usually be given to the parent who was first awarded custody . . . because this policy assures stability in the child’s life'” … . “Thus, [w]hen . . . there is no indication that a change of custody will result in significantly enhancing the child’s welfare, it is generally considered in the child’s best interests not to disrupt his [or her] life'” … . McCance v De Witt, 2014 NY Slip Op 04175, 2nd Dept 6-11-14

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT WAIVED THE LACK-OF-PERSONAL-JURISDICTION DEFENSE BY COUNSEL’S FILING A NOTICE OF APPEARANCE WITHOUT RAISING THE JURISDICTION OBJECTION (SECOND DEPT).
ATTORNEY’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW BECAUSE OF CLIENT’S FAILURE TO PAY AND LACK OF COOPERATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS WORKING ON A ROOF WHEN HE ALLEGEDLY CONTACTED AN ELECTRIC WIRE LEADING TO THE HOME AND WAS KILLED; THE UTILITIES’ (CON EDISON’S) MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION ON THE GROUND IT OWED NO DUTY TO PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
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).
Lawyer’s Communication Did Not Make “Time of the Essence.”
PETITIONER DEMONSTRATED A GOOD FAITH EFFORT TO TIMELY FILE AND SERVE HIS OPPOSITION PAPERS AND DEMONSTRATED A POTENTIALLY MERITORIOUS CAUSE OF ACTION; SUPREME COURT HAD REFUSED TO CONSIDER THE OPPOSITION PAPERS BEFORE ISSUING ITS ORDER DISMISSING THE PETITION; THE ORDER SHOULD HAVE BEEN VACATED (SECOND DEPT).
IN REINSTATING THE ACTION AFTER VACATING THE ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANTS’, THE SECOND DEPARTMENT EXPLAINED WHAT SHOULD BE ALLEGED IN A COMPLAINT FOR LABOR LAW 240(1), 241(6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE REFEREE’S REPORT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS BASED UPON INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED BY SUPREME COURT (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

Mother’s Failure to Seek Immediate Medical Assistance for Child Fatally... Suspended Judgment Should Not Have Been Granted in Termination-of-Parental-Rights...