You are here: / / CRITERIA FOR REVEIW OF A CUSTODY DETERMINATION CONCISELY EXPLAINED.
,

CRITERIA FOR REVEIW OF A CUSTODY DETERMINATION CONCISELY EXPLAINED.

The Second Department, upholding Family Court’s custody determination, offered a concise description of the analytical criteria:

There is “no prima facie right to the custody of the child in either parent” … . The essential consideration in making an award of custody is the best interests of the children … , which are determined by a review of the totality of the circumstances … . In making a determination as to what custody arrangement is in the children’s best interests, the court should consider the quality of the home environment and the parental guidance the custodial parent provides for the children, the ability of each parent to provide for the children’s emotional and intellectual development, the financial status and ability of each parent to provide for the children, the relative fitness of the respective parents, and the effect an award of custody to one parent might have on the children’s relationship with the other parent … . The court should also consider the children’s wishes, weighed in light of their ages and maturity … . “As a custody determination depends to a great extent upon an assessment of the character and credibility of the parties and witnesses, the findings of the Family Court will not be disturbed unless they lack a sound and substantial basis in the record” … . Matter of Schultheis v Schultheis, 2016 NY Slip Op 05648, 2nd Dept 7-27-16

FAMILY LAW (CRITERIA FOR REVIEW OF A CUSTODY DETERMINATION CONCISELY EXPLAINED)/CUSTODY (CRITERIA FOR RREVEIW OF A CUSTODY DETERMINATION CONCISELY EXPLAINED)/APPPEALS (FAMILY LAW, CRITERIA FOR REVIEW OF A CUSTODY DETERMINATION CONCISELY EXPLAINED)

You might also like
ALTHOUGH NO ESPINAL FACTORS WERE ALLEGED BY PLAINTIFF IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT’S ORAL CONTRACT WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER TO REMOVE ICE AND SNOW ENTIRELY REPLACED THE PROPERTY OWNER’S DUTY, AND WHETHER DEFENDANT HAD CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF A RECURRENT ICY CONDITION, PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
THE STOP OF DEFENDANT’S CAR WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY REASONABLE SUSPICION; THE REPORT THAT A SUSPICIOUS CAR WAS FOLLOWING SOMEONE DID NOT DESCRIBE THE CAR AND DEFENDANT WAS NOT FOLLOWING ANYONE WHEN STOPPED; THE PROOF AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT WAS TRESPASSING BY DRIVING ON THE PRIVATE ROAD, WHICH WAS THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE STOP RELIED UPON BY SUPREME COURT (SECOND DEPT).
A LATE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD BE ALLOWED WHERE, AS HERE, DISCOVERY WAS NOT COMPLETE AT THE TIME THE MOTION WAS DUE AND THE DISCOVERY IS ESSENTIAL TO THE MOTION (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF LOST HER LABOR LAW 740 WRONGFUL TERMINATION TRIAL, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE AWARDED ATTORNEY’S FEES TO DEFENDANT, PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM WAS NOT BASELESS (SECOND DEPT).
Single-Family House Exemption to Labor Law Action Applied
THE CITY ORDERED PLAINTIFF TO REPAIR A WATER LEAK ON PLAINTIFF’S PROPERTY WHICH THE CITY CLAIMED CAUSED A SINK HOLE IN THE ABUTTING ROAD; PLAINTIFF PAID FOR EXCAVATING THE AREA AND FIXING THE ROAD; PLAINTIFF SUED THE CITY ALLEGING THERE WAS NO WATER LEAK AND THE CITY NEGLIGENTLY ORDERED HER TO REPAIR THE ROAD; THE NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED (NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH PLAINTIFF), BUT THE UNJUST ENRICHMENT CAUSE OF ACTION BASED ON PLAINTFF’S PAYING FOR THE REPAIR OF THE PUBLIC ROAD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
Motion to Vacate Default Judgment in Foreclosure Action Properly Granted—Criteria Explained
Criteria for Recovery of Lost Profits for Breach of Contract Described

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

RELIANCE ON A JURISDICTIONAL THEORY AT TRIAL WHICH DIFFERED FROM THE JURISDICTION... SAFETY CONSULTANT DID NOT EXERCISE SUFFICIENT CONTROL OVER WORKSITE TO BE LIABLE...