You are here: / / FINAL ORDERS OF PROTECTION ISSUED ON THE COURT’S OWN MOTION WITHOUT...

FINAL ORDERS OF PROTECTION ISSUED ON THE COURT’S OWN MOTION WITHOUT FOLLOWING THE PROCEDURE REQUIRED BY FAMILY COURT ACT 154-c VACATED.

The Third Department determined Family Court did not follow the statutory procedure for issuing final orders of protection. Although a court may issue a temporary order of protection on its own motion without following the procedure, it may not do so for final orders:

 

… Family Ct Act § 154-c (3) provides, in relevant part: “No order of protection may direct any party to observe conditions of behavior unless: (i) the party requesting the order of protection has served and filed a petition or counter-claim in accordance with article four, five, six or eight of this act and, (ii) the court has made a finding on the record that such party is entitled to issuance of the order of protection which may result from a judicial finding of fact, judicial acceptance of an admission by the party against whom the order was issued or judicial finding that the party against whom the order is issued has given knowing, intelligent and voluntary consent to its issuance” (emphasis added). Although a Family Court can issue a temporary order of protection on its own motion and, in so doing, it would “not [be] required to follow all of the ordinary procedural requirements” (… see Family Ct Act § 828 [1] [a]), where, as here, the court enters a final order of protection, it is required to observe the procedural steps set forth in Family Ct Act § 154-c (3) … . Indeed, Family Ct Act § 154-c (3) was amended in 1998 “to incorporate, explicitly, federal minimum due-process requirements regarding judicial findings as a prerequisite to issuing orders of protection, to ensure that such orders are given full faith and credit by courts of other jurisdictions” …

Here, although there was an exchange of proposed terms for mutual orders of protection, the mother clearly indicated that she did not consent to the orders containing the terms that Family Court ultimately adopted on its own motion or admit any pertinent allegations set forth in the father’s family offense petition … . Nor did Family Court conduct an examination of the factual basis of the parties’ family offense petitions or make a finding that the terms objected to by the mother were “reasonably necessary” to protect the parties or their children … . Matter of Daniel W. v Kimberly W., 2016 NY Slip Op 00070, 3rd Dept 1-7-16

 

FAMILY LAW (FINAL ORDERS OF PROTECTION ISSUED ON THE COURT’S OWN MOTION WITHOUT FOLLOWING STATUTORY PROCEDURE VACATED)/ORDERS OF PROTECTION (FAMILY COURT, FINAL ORDERS OF PROTECTION ISSUED ON THE COURT’S OWN MOTION WITHOUT FOLLOWING STATUTORY PROCEDURE VACATED)

You might also like
Substantial Evidence Supported Finding Claimant Was an Employee, Not an Independent Contractor
UNLIKE AN APPLICATION FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW OF A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW JUDGE’S (WCLJ’S) DECISION, WHICH HAS A 30-DAY TIME LIMIT, AN APPLICATION FOR A REHEARING OR TO REOPEN A CLAIM MUST BE MADE IN A REASONABLE TIME (THIRD DEPT).
Patient’s Suicide Was Not a Foreseeable Consequence of Doctor’s Alleged Failure to Properly Diagnose and Treat Patient’s Abdominal Pain
IN A TAYLOR LAW ARBITRATION, WHERE THE PARTIES CHOOSE THE ARBITRATORS, THE PARTIALITY OF A CHOSEN ARBITRATOR, WITHOUT MORE, IS NOT A GROUND FOR DISQUALIFICATION (THIRD DEPT).
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF-SELLER MAY HAVE THOUGHT THE PARCEL OF REAL PROPERTY SHE SOLD WAS SMALLER THAN IT ACTUALLY WAS, DEFENDANT-BUYER WAS NEVER UNDER THAT IMPRESSION; THE COMPLAINT ALLEGING THE DEAL SHOULD BE RESCINDED BASED ON MUTUAL MISTAKE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).
BREACH OF CONTRACT COUNTERCLAIM AGAINST HOME IMPROVEMENT CONTRACTOR PROPERLY DECIDED IN HOMEOWNERS’ FAVOR; THE CONTRACT DID NOT COMPLY WITH GENERAL BUSINESS LAW 771(1)(b) AND THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE WAS DEFICIENT (THIRD DEPT).
OFFICE LEASING BROKER WAS AN EMPLOYEE ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS THE OWNER OF THE SCOOTER, WHETHER DEFENDANT KNEW DECEDENT WAS NOT COMPETENT TO OPERATE THE SCOOTER, AND WHETHER DEFENDANT GAVE DECEDENT PERMISSION TO TEST DRIVE THE SCOOTER; THE NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (THIRD 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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

GRANDMOTHER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES JUSTIFYING AWARD... DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL DID NOT APPLY TO PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR...