You are here: / / CONDITIONS OF FATHER’S VISITATION CANNOT BE DETERMINED BY A THER...

CONDITIONS OF FATHER’S VISITATION CANNOT BE DETERMINED BY A THERAPIST.

The Second Department determined Family Court improperly left the conditions for father’s visitation with his child up to a therapist:

… [I]t is for the Family Court—not the child’s therapist—to exercise its own discretion to determine how, when, and under what terms and conditions the father’s visitation with the subject child … is to resume … . Matter of Rogan v Guida, 2016 NY Slip Op 06716, 2nd Dept 10-12-16

FAMILY LAW (CONDITIONS OF FATHER’S VISITATION CANNOT BE DETERMINED BY A THERAPIST)/VISITATION (FAMILY LAW, CONDITIONS OF FATHER’S VISITATION CANNOT BE DETERMINED BY A THERAPIST)

You might also like
TO, SUA SPONTE, DECIDE BRANCHES OF A MOTION AND CROSS-MOTION ON A GROUND NOT RAISED BY THE PARTIES DEPRIVED PLAIINTIFF OF THE OPPORTUNITY TO REFUTE THE JUDGE’S DETERMINATION (SECOND DEPT).
No Proof Misrepresentation Caused Decedent to Disinherit Daughter
Questions of Fact Raised About Whether Student Assumed the Risk of Injury from Indoor Soccer Practice–Relevant Law Discussed In Some Depth
THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, INCREASED A PENALTY TO WHICH THE PARTIES HAD AGREED IN A SO-ORDERED STIPULATION (SECOND DEPT).
THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS AUTOMATICALLY STAYED WHEN DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY WAS SUSPENDED; EVEN THOUGH THE ORDER GRANTING THE ATTORNEY’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW DIRECTED DEFENDANT TO RETAIN AN ATTORNEY OR GO AHEAD PRO SE, DEFENDANT WAS NEVER SERVED WITH A NOTICE TO APPOINT AN ATTORNEY REQUIRED BY CPLR 321; THEREFORE THE STAY WAS NOT LIFTED AND DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT ORDER SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE AND LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Permit Allowing the Killing of 62 Deer Properly Issued/Exception to the Mootness Doctrine Applied
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO EXTEND THE TIME TO SERVE THE DEFENDANT PURSUANT TO CPLR 306-B SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE; IF A PLAINTIFF IS NOT ENTITLED TO EXTEND TIME FOR GOOD CAUSE, THE COURT SHOULD GO ON TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE MOTION SHOULD BE GRANTED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (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

DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING RE: WHETHER HIS CONVICTION SHOULD BE VACATED;... INSURER WAS NOTIFIED OF PLAINTIFFS’ LAWSUIT BY THE INJURED PLAINTIFFS...