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
NOTE HOLDER’S COMPLIANCE WITH NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 NOT DEMONSTRATED, MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
BANK DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Referee’s Authority Exceeded—Authority Comes from Consent of the Parties
ABSENT PROOF OF 16-YEAR-OLD CHILD’S COLLEGE PLANS, ANY AWARD OF COLLEGE EXPENSES WOULD BE PREMATURE.
PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT AFFIDAVIT WAS SPECULATIVE AND WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY MEDICAL RECORDS; DEFENDANT PODIATRIST’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; EXTENSIVE DISSENT (SECOND DEPT). ​
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE SCHOOL INVESTIGATED THE INCIDENT WITHIN 90 DAYS, PLAINTIFF IS DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED, THE NOTICE WAS TWO DAYS LATE.
33 HOUR DELAY IN ARRAIGNMENT, UNDER THE FACTS, DID NOT RENDER STATEMENT INVOLUNTARILY MADE.
PLAINTIFF BANK’S ATTORNEY’S FEES IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED ABSENT PROOF OF THE ATTORNEY’S EXPERIENCE AND ABILITIES AND THE NATURE OF THE SERVICES RENDERED (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

Copyright © 2023 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
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...