You are here: / / IT WAS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF SIBLINGS TO REMAIN TOGETHER, CUSTODY OF...

IT WAS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF SIBLINGS TO REMAIN TOGETHER, CUSTODY OF BOTH CHILDREN SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARDED TO FATHER IN THIS MODIFICATION PROCEEDING.

The Second Department determined Family Court properly awarded custody of Jonathan to father, finding modification of custody was justified by changed circumstances. However Family Court erred in failing to award father custody of Jonathan’s sibling, Madison. It was deemed to be in Madison’s best interests to continue living with Jonathan:

… [T]he Supreme Court’s determination that the evidence did not demonstrate a sufficient change in circumstances warranting modification of the custody provisions of the settlement agreement so as to award the father residential custody of the parties’ child Madison is not supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record. It “has long [been] recognized that it is often in the child’s best interests to continue to live with his [or her] siblings” … , and “the courts will not disrupt sibling relationships unless there is an overwhelming need to do so” … . It is undisputed that Jonathan and Madison have a close relationship, and, based upon the recommendations of the children’s therapist that they should not be separated, the position of the attorney for the children that they should remain with the same custodial parent, and evidence that the father demonstrated more of an ability and willingness to assure meaningful contact between the children and the mother, and to foster a healthier relationship between the children and the mother, than the mother would have fostered between the children and the father, the court should have awarded residential custody of Madison to the father … . Cook v Cook, 2016 NY Slip Op 05743, 2nd Dept 8-10-16

FAMILY LAW IT WAS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF SIBLINGS TO REMAIN TOGETHER, CUSTODY OF BOTH CHILDREN SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARDED TO FATHER IN THIS MODFICATION PROCEEDING/CUSTODY IT WAS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF SIBLINGS TO REMAIN TOGETHER, CUSTODY OF BOTH CHILDREN SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARDED TO FATHER IN THIS MODFICATION PROCEEDING)

You might also like
Brutality of Offense Warranted an Upward Departure in SORA Proceeding
DEFECT WHICH CAUSED SLIP AND FALL WAS TRIVIAL AS A MATTER OF LAW 2ND DEPT.
THE PETITION FOR LEAVE TO SERVE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BASED ON THE WRONG VENUE BECAUSE RESPONDENTS DID NOT OBJECT TO THE VENUE; IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE BASED UPON A STILLBIRTH, MOTHER’S AND FATHER’S PETITIONS MUST BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY; ALTHOUGH PETITIONERS DID NOT SHOW RESPONDENTS HAD TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE POTENTIAL LAWSUIT, MOTHER DEMONSTRATED AN ADEQUATE EXCUSE AND RESPONDENTS’ LACK OF PREJUDICE; MOTHER’S PETITION WAS GRANTED AND FATHER’S WAS DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
CALCULATONS RELIED UPON BY THE REFEREE WERE BASED ON UNIDENTIFIED AND UNPRODUCED BUSINESS RECORDS RENDERING THE CALCULATIONS HEARSAY; THE REPORT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT PRESENTED SUFFICIENT PROOF SHE DID NOT LIVE AT THE ADDRESS WHERE THE FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT WAS SERVED TO WARRANT A HEARING; THERE WAS NO SHOWING THAT HER FAILURE TO UPDATE HER ADDRESS WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES WAS TO PREVENT SERVICE (SECOND DEPT).
THE APPLICABLE STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS FOR DECLARATORY-JUDGMENT CAUSES OF ACTION DEPEND ON THE NATURE OF THE UNDERLYING ALLEGATIONS; HERE THE ALLEGATIONS SOUNDED IN FRAUD, UNJUST ENRICHMENT AND VIOLATIONS OF THE REAL PROPERTY LAW; ALL WERE TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).
BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF THE MORTGAGE IN THIS FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING, THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
County (Nassau) Must Indemnify Special Districts for Ad Valorem Tax Refunds Paid by the Special Districts

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

JOINDER OF DEFENDANT AND CO-DEFENDANT FOR TRIAL WAS LAWFUL BUT, BECAUSE OF IRRECONCILABLE... ALTHOUGH MOTHER WAS ENTITLED TO CUSTODY AS SOLE SURVIVING PARENT, HER PETITION...