You are here: / / FAMILY COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY REFUSING TO ALLOW MOTHER TO APPEAR...

FAMILY COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY REFUSING TO ALLOW MOTHER TO APPEAR BY TELEPHONE FROM FLORIDA.

The Fourth Department determined Family Court, in a neglect proceeding, abused its discretion by refusing mother's request to appear by telephone:

The record establishes that the mother moved to Florida, with financial assistance from DSS, during the period between the fact-finding hearing and the dispositional hearing. She requested permission to make future appearances by telephone, and the court denied the request, citing “the facts and circumstances of the case” and its preference that the mother be present “as any party of the proceeding should be present.” While section 75-j does not require courts to allow testimony by telephone or electronic means in all cases … , we conclude that the ruling here, in which the court failed to consider the impact of the mother's limited financial resources on her ability to travel to New York, was an abuse of discretion … . Matter of Thomas B. (Calla B.), 2016 NY Slip Op 03640, 4th Dept, 5-6-16

FAMILY LAW (FAMILY COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY REFUSING TO ALLOW MOTHER TO APPEAR BY TELEPHONE FROM FLORIDA)/TELEPHONE, APPEARANCE BY (FAMILY COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY REFUSING TO ALLOW MOTHER TO APPEAR BY TELEPHONE FROM FLORIDA)

You might also like
AN UNPLEADED AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE MAY BE SUCCESSFULLY RAISED TO DEFEAT A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FOURTH DEPT).
“Open and Obvious” Nature of Defect Does Not Negate Duty to Keep Premises Safe.
VENUE FOR THIS HYBRID ARTICLE 78/DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION SEEKING TO ANNUL A TOWN LOCAL LAW WHICH CREATED A WILDLIFE OVERLAY DISTRICT IS THE COUNTY IN WHICH THE TOWN IS LOCATED PURSUANT TO TOWN LAW SECTION 66 (1) (FOURTH DEPT).
Falling Off X-Ray Table Raised Question of Fact
THE PEOPLE DID NOT PRESENT EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE AT THE DARDEN HEARING THAT THE INFORMANT EXISTED, THEREFORE THE SUPPRESSION MOTION WAS GRANTED AND THE INDICTMENT DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SAFETY DEVICES FOR LIFTING HEAVY MOTOR WERE AVAILABLE, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
NOTICE OF INTENT WAS TIMELY AND THE CLAIM WAS NOT JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE, INMATE’S MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST THE STATE REINSTATED (FOURTH DEPT).
THE CRITERIA FOR IMPOSING THE MAXIMUM RESTITUTION SURCHARGE OF 10% WERE NOT MET (FOURTH DEPT).

Categories

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

Copyright © 2023 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

EVIDENCE SUPPORTING UPWARD DEPARTURE WAS SPECULATIVE AND DID NOT RISE TO THE... WHETHER ADIRONDACK WATERWAY IS NAVIGABLE IN FACT, AND THEREFORE AVAILABLE FOR...