You are here: / / FAMILY COURT COULD NOT ALLOW VISITATION WHILE A CRIMINAL ORDER OF PROTECTION...

FAMILY COURT COULD NOT ALLOW VISITATION WHILE A CRIMINAL ORDER OF PROTECTION IS IN PLACE.

The Second Department determined that Family Court properly denied mother’s motion for kinship visitation because a criminal court order of protection was in place:

As a general rule, the “Family Court does not have jurisdiction to countermand the provisions of a criminal court order of protection” … . Thus, where a criminal court order of protection bars contact between a parent and child, the parent may not obtain visitation until the order of protection is vacated or modified by the criminal court … . However, the criminal court has authority to determine whether its order of protection is “subject to” subsequent Family Court orders, and where the criminal court order of protection “expressly contemplates future amendment of its terms by a subsequent Family Court order pertaining to custody and visitation,” the Family Court is not precluded from granting custody or visitation by the terms of the order of protection … . Here, since the Supreme Court’s temporary order of protection dated April 1, 2016, did not state that it was “subject to” subsequent Family Court orders, the Family Court had no basis to permit “kinship visitation” supervised by the maternal grandmother. Matter of Rihana J.H. (Quianna J.), 2017 NY Slip Op 01202, 2nd Dept 2-15-17

FAMILY LAW (FAMILY COURT COULD NOT ALLOW VISITATION WHILE A CRIMINAL ORDER OF PROTECTION IS IN PLACE)/VISITATION (FAMILY LAW, FAMILY COURT COULD NOT ALLOW VISITATION WHILE A CRIMINAL ORDER OF PROTECTION IS IN PLACE)/CRIMINAL LAW (FAMILY LAW, ORDER OF PROTECTION, FAMILY COURT COULD NOT ALLOW VISITATION WHILE A CRIMINAL ORDER OF PROTECTION IS IN PLACE)/ORDER OF PROTECTION (FAMILY LAW,  FAMILY COURT COULD NOT ALLOW VISITATION WHILE A CRIMINAL ORDER OF PROTECTION IS IN PLACE)

You might also like
DEFENDANT SNOW-REMOVAL CONTRACTOR DID NOT NEED TO DEMONSTRATE THE ESPINAL EXCEPTIONS DID NOT APPLY IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE BECAUSE PLAINTIFF DID NOT ALLEGE ANY OF THE EXCEPTIONS APPLIED; THEREFORE DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE GROUND PLAINTIFF WAS NOT A PARTY TO THE CONTRACT (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE BUILDING OWNER WAS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED ON THE LESSEE’S POLICY, THE INSURER HAD NO DUTY TO DEFEND AN ACTION STEMMING FROM A SLIP AND FALL IN THE BUILDING PARKING LOT, THE LEASE DID NOT CALL FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE PARKING LOT BY THE LESSEE.
PLAINTIFF IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE DID NOT SEE THE CONDITION THAT CAUSED HIM TO FALL NEAR A SINK IN DEFENDANTS’ BATHROOM, BUT HIS PANTS WERE WET AFTER THE FALL; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE GROUND THAT PLAINTIFF COULD NOT IDENTIFY THE CAUSE OF HIS FALL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE “TIME WHEN” ALLEGATIONS IN THE CLAIM IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT SUIT WERE SUFFICIENT, COURT OF CLAIMS REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
Some of the Requirements for the Application of Attorney Work-Product and Trial-Preparation Privileges Explained
ONCE PLAINTIFF’S FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS DISCONTINUED BY STIPULATION, THE FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT COULD BE AMENDED TO SEEK RECOVERY ON THE NOTE (SECOND DEPT).
Plaintiff Struck by Sled—Village Immune from Liability Under General Obligations Law
MOTION TO SERVE AN AMENDED NOTICE OF CLAIM AS A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED, AMENDED NOTICE PURPORTED TO ADD NEW THEORIES OF LIABILITY AND A TIME-BARRED DERIVATIVE CLAIM (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

FATHER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED SOLE CUSTODY IN THE ABSENCE OF A HEARIN... CHILD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REMOVED FROM FATHER’S CARE, EVEN THOUGH CHILD...