You are here: / / STANDARD FOR THE NEED FOR A HEARING TO DETERMINE CUSTODY CLARIFIED; HERE...
,

STANDARD FOR THE NEED FOR A HEARING TO DETERMINE CUSTODY CLARIFIED; HERE SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RULED ON CUSTODY WITHOUT A HEARING.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, reversing the Appellate Division, determined Supreme Court should not have awarded sole custody to father without a hearing. The “adequate relevant information” standard used by the Appellate Division was not the correct one:

… [W]e hold only that, on this record, the Appellate Division erred in holding that a hearing was not required based on an application of the “adequate relevant information” standard. In doing so, we reaffirm the long-established principle that, as a general matter, custody determinations should be rendered only after a full and plenary hearing. We decline, however, to fashion a “one size fits all” rule mandating a hearing in every custody case statewide. However, where, as here, facts material to the best interest analysis, and the circumstances surrounding such facts, remain in dispute, a custody hearing is required. Accordingly, a court opting to forego a plenary hearing must take care to clearly articulate which factors were — or were not — material to its determination, and the evidence supporting its decision. Under the circumstances of this case, a plenary hearing was necessary. S.L. v J.R., 2016 NY Slip Op 04442, CtApp 6-9-16

FAMILY LAW (STANDARD FOR THE NEED FOR A HEARING TO DETERMINE CUSTODY CLARIFIED; HERE SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RULED ON CUSTODY WITHOUT A HEARING)/CUSTODY (STANDARD FOR THE NEED FOR A HEARING TO DETERMINE CUSTODY CLARIFIED; HERE SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RULED ON CUSTODY WITHOUT A HEARING)/EVIDENCE (FAMILY LAW, STANDARD FOR THE NEED FOR A HEARING TO DETERMINE CUSTODY CLARIFIED; HERE SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RULED ON CUSTODY WITHOUT A HEARING)

You might also like
PLAIN VIEW EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT DID NOT APPLY, SUPPRESSION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
Anonymous Tip Alone, In the Absence of “Predictive Information,” Sufficient to Provide “Reasonable Suspicion” Justifying a Vehicle Stop
There Was Sufficient Evidence Defendant Was Responsible for a Witness’ Refusal to Testify to Allow the People to Present the Witness’ Grand Jury Testimony at Trial
MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION PROPERLY DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING; DEFENDANT DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF ACTUAL OR POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST ON THE PART OF DEFENSE COUNSEL.
THE UNEXPLAINED DELAY OF 38 MONTHS IN SEEKING A WARRANT FOR A DNA SAMPLE FROM THE DEFENDANT, WHO HAD BEEN IDENTIFIED AS THE RAPIST BY THE COMPLAINANT RIGHT AWAY, VIOLATED DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL; CONVICTION REVERSED (CT APP).
Search of Camera in Possession of the Police for Illegal Images Was Valid Even though Underlying Warrant Was Issued In a Case Closed Before the Search
POLICEMAN AND FIREFIGHTER WERE INJURED BY RISKS INHERENT IN THEIR JOBS AND THEREFORE WERE NOT ENTITLED TO ACCIDENTAL DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS (CT APP).
Out of State Conviction of then 15-Year-Old Could Not Serve as Basis for Second Felony Offender Sentence

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

EVIDENCE OF A SIMILAR UNCHARGED CRIME AGAINST THE SAME VICTIM PROPERLY ADMI... MEDICAL RECORDS DOCUMENTING THE MEDICAL CARE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE HOSPITAL...