You are here: / / MOTHER’S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS VIOLATED, MOTHER INSTRUCTED NOT TO CONSULT...

MOTHER’S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS VIOLATED, MOTHER INSTRUCTED NOT TO CONSULT WITH ATTORNEY DURING RECESSES, WHICH WERE EXTENSIVE.

The Second Department, exercising its interest of justice jurisdiction, determined a new custody hearing was necessary because Family Court instructed mother not to speak to her attorney during recesses:

… [T]he mother’s hearing testimony spanned several court dates and took place over a period of months. At the end of four hearing dates, while the mother’s testimony was continuing, the Family Court instructed the mother not to discuss her testimony with her attorney during the recess. One of these recesses was overnight, two recesses were for approximately one week, and one recess was, because of adjournments, for more than three months. …

The Family Court violated the mother’s fundamental due process rights when it instructed her not to consult with her attorney during recesses, which resulted in her being unable to speak to her attorney over extended periods of time … . Matter of Turner v Valdespino, 2016 NY Slip Op 04724, 2nd Dept 6-15-16

 

FAMILY LAW (MOTHER’S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS VIOLATED, MOTHER INSTRUCTED NOT TO CONSULT WITH ATTORNEY DURING RECESSES, WHICH WERE EXTENSIVE)/ATTORNEYS (MOTHER’S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS VIOLATED, MOTHER INSTRUCTED BY FAMILY COURT NOT TO CONSULT WITH ATTORNEY DURING RECESSES, WHICH WERE EXTENSIVE)/DUE PROCESS  (MOTHER’S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS VIOLATED, MOTHER INSTRUCTED BY FAMILY COURT NOT TO CONSULT WITH ATTORNEY DURING RECESSES, WHICH WERE EXTENSIVE)

You might also like
“Voluntary Payment Doctrine” Explained and Applied to Preclude Recovery
LEAVE TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST THE SCHOOL DISTRICT IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED, EVEN IF THE EXCUSE FOR FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE WAS NOT REASONABLE, THE SCHOOL DISTRICT WAS NOT PREJUDICED BY THE DELAY (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNERS HAD CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE DETERIORATION OF A TREE LIMB WHICH FELL ON PLANTIFF’S CAR (SECOND DEPT). ​
DEFENDANTS’ FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE THE NORMAL RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH HORSEBACK RIDING WERE NOT UNREASONABLY INCREASED BY THE RIDING INSTRUCTOR REQUIRED DENIAL OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
MOTION TO AMEND THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT TO ADD AN APPARENTLY MISNAMED PARTY AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE ESTATE WAS A NECESSARY PARTY IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE ORDERED THE JOINDER OF THE ESTATE INSTEAD OF DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE BETTER PRACTICE IS TO SUBMIT A SEPARATE AFFIRMATION, DEFENSE COUNSEL’S PRIMARY AFFIRMATION IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO SUBMIT TO A VOCATIONAL EXAM DESCRIBED THE GOOD FAITH EFFORTS TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE, THE MOTION TO COMPEL WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD WAS NOT OBLIGATED BY THE LEASE OR ANY STATUTE TO REPAIR THE FLOOR OF A WALK-IN FREEZER IN THE LEASED PREMISES; PLAINTIFF ALLEGED DENTS IN THE METAL FLOOR CAUSED HIS LADDER TO FALL OVER; THE LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (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

POLICY EXCLUSION WAS AMBIGUOUS, INSURER HAD A DUTY TO DEFEND. HUSBAND ENTITLED TO ONLY FIVE PERCENT OF WIFE’S ENHANCED EARNING CAPACITY...