You are here: / / Mother Was Not Afforded a Full Hearing in a Custody-Modification Proce...
,

Mother Was Not Afforded a Full Hearing in a Custody-Modification Proceeding

The Third Department determined Family Court erred by not affording mother the opportunity to fully cross-examine father or present her own proof in a custody-modification proceeding:

It is well settled “that modification of a Family Ct Act article 6 custody order requires a full and comprehensive hearing at which a parent is to be afforded a full and fair opportunity to be heard” … . Family Court plainly deprived the mother of such a hearing by preventing her from fully cross-examining the father or submitting her own proof before imposing a custody arrangement to which she had not consented … . Matter of Richardson v Massey, 2015 NY Slip Op 02817, 3rd Dept 4-2-15

 

You might also like
RELEASE REFERRED ONLY TO INJURIES SUFFERED BY DEFENDANT AND THEREFORE DID NOT PRECLUDE A SUIT STEMMING FROM INJURIES TO ANOTHER.
AGREEMENT ALLOWING CASINO GAMBLING ON ONEIDA NATION LAND DID NOT VIOLATE TOWNS’ “HOME RULE” RIGHTS.
THE MURDER SECOND DEGREE COUNTS MUST BE DISMISSED AS INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNTS OF THE MURDER FIRST DEGREE CONVICTION (THIRD DEPT).
UNDER THE FACTS, THE ATTEMPTED KIDNAPPING CONVICTION MERGED WITH THE SEXUAL ABUSE AND ASSAULT CONVICTIONS.
Plea Allocution Insufficient—Plea Vacated in Absence of Motion to Withdraw or Vacate
Appellate Court Defers to Agency Interpretation of a Statute When Specialized Knowledge Required
THE RESTITUTION ORDERED AS PART OF DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE AFTER THE SECOND TRIAL RAISED A PRESUMPTION OF VINDICTIVENESS; DEFENDANT ARGUED THE RESTITUTION WAS PUNISHMENT FOR WINNING THE APPEAL OF THE FIRST TRIAL; THE THIRD DEPARTMENT VACATED THE RESTITUTION; ALSO, THE MURDER SECOND DEGREE COUNTS WERE DISMISSED AS INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNTS OF MURDER FIRST DEGREE (THIRD DEPT).
Petitioner Was Entitled to a Reduction in the Assessed Value of a Home Depot Store Based Upon Its Expert’s Appraisal

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Second Foreclosure Action Not Prohibited Where First Is Not Pending and Did... Evidence of a Defendant’s Silence In Response to Questions Posed by the...