You are here: / / GRANDMOTHER ENTITLED TO HEARING ON HER PETITION FOR CUSTODY, HEARING SHOULD...

GRANDMOTHER ENTITLED TO HEARING ON HER PETITION FOR CUSTODY, HEARING SHOULD BE HELD IN DISPOSITIONAL PORTION OF PROCEEDINGS TO TERMINATE MOTHER’S PARENTAL RIGHTS.

The Second Department, in a case related to the two cases summarized immediately above, determined grandmother’s petition for custody should not have been dismissed without a hearing. Mother’s parental rights were terminated based upon mental illness and permanent neglect. The Second Department held that grandmother’s petition for custody should be part of the dispositional hearing in the mother’s parental rights proceedings:

A grandparent has standing to seek custody of a child pursuant to Family Court Act article 6 when the child is in foster care, and is generally entitled to a hearing … . While the grandmother was not entitled to an immediate hearing on her custody petition prior to the determination made at the conclusion of the fact-finding hearing in the termination proceedings against the mother … , the proper procedural course would have been for the Family Court to consider her custody petition in the context of a dispositional hearing in the underlying termination proceedings, wherein the court would determine the best interests of the child … . The grandmother did not testify at the fact-finding hearing or any of the permanency hearings held in relation to the termination proceedings against the mother, and was therefore never afforded the right to be heard on the issues … . Accordingly, the Family Court erred in failing to resolve the custody petition before freeing the child for adoption … . Matter of Weiss v Weiss, 2016 NY Slip Op 05717, 2nd Dept 8-3-16

FAMILY LAW (GRANDMOTHER ENTITLED TO HEARING ON HER PETITION FOR CUSTODY, HEARING SHOULD BE HELD IN DISPOSITIONAL PORTION OF PROCEEDINGS TO TERMINATE MOTHER’S PARENTAL RIGHTS)/CUSTODY (GRANDMOTHER ENTITLED TO HEARING ON HER PETITION FOR CUSTODY, HEARING SHOULD BE HELD IN DISPOSITIONAL PORTION OF PROCEEDINGS TO TERMINATE MOTHER’S PARENTAL RIGHTS)/GRANDPARENTS (FAMILY LAW, GRANDMOTHER ENTITLED TO HEARING ON HER PETITION FOR CUSTODY, HEARING SHOULD BE HELD IN DISPOSITIONAL PORTION OF PROCEEDINGS TO TERMINATE MOTHER’S PARENTAL RIGHTS)

You might also like
DEFENSE COUNSEL GAVE DEFENDANT THE WRONG INFORMATION ABOUT THE MAXIMUM SENTENCE SHOULD HE GO TO TRIAL, DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA WAS THEREFORE NOT VOLUNTARY, EXCEPTION TO THE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT FOR APPEAL APPLIED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFFS FOUND OUT WELL INTO THE CONTRACT FOR GAS-MAIN WORK THAT THE REQUESTED INSURANCE COVERAGE HAD NOT BEEN PROVIDED; THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT CAUSE OF ACTION WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED BECAUSE IT DEPENDED ON A CIRCUMSTANCE THAT MAY NOT OCCUR; THE NEGLIGENT PROCUREMENT CAUSE OF ACTION WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED FOR LACK OF DAMAGES; THE BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION WAS SUPPORTED BY NOMINAL DAMAGES; THE FRAUD AND NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION CAUSES OF ACTION WERE SUPPORTED BY A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE INSURANCE BROKER AND DETRIMENTAL RELIANCE (SECOND DEPT).
A CAUSE OF ACTION MAY BE DISMISSED PURSUANT TO CPLR 3211 (a) (4) BECAUSE IT SEEKS THE SAME RELIEF AS A PENDING ACTION INVOLVING THE SAME PARTIES (SECOND DEPT).
10-Year-Old Plaintiff’s Testimony Should Have Been Considered—No Need for Hearing to Determine Testimonial Capacity
PARTY WHICH PURCHASED THE PROPERTY AFTER FORECLOSURE WAS COMMENCED WAS ENTITLED TO INTERVENE IN THE FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS BUT DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO ALLEGE PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT COMPLY WITH NOTICE REQUIREMENTS; THE ESTATE OF THE ORIGINAL BORROWER IS NOT A NECESSARY PARTY (SECOND DEPT).
CITY WAS NOTIFIED OF THE ESSENTIAL FACTS OF PETITIONER’S CLAIM BY A TIMELY NOTICE OF CLAIM FILED BY THE OTHER PARTY IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, PETITIONER’S REQUEST TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
MOTION TO RENEW SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF SNOW AND ICE ON THE SIDEWALK AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HE DID NOT CREATE THE HAZARD BY SNOW REMOVAL, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

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

GRANDMOTHER ENTITLED TO HEARING ON WHETHER SHE HAS STANDING TO PETITION FOR... DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLACEMENT OF A FLOWER POT NEAR THE BASKETBALL...