You are here: / / SUPREME COURT IMPROPERLY AWARDED CUSTODY TO FATHER, RELIEF WHICH HAD NOT...

SUPREME COURT IMPROPERLY AWARDED CUSTODY TO FATHER, RELIEF WHICH HAD NOT BEEN REQUESTED BY FATHER, WITHOUT A BEST INTERESTS HEARING, AFTER MOTHER ASKED TO APPEAR AT A HEARING BY TELEPHONE.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the award of custody to father, which father had not requested, when mother asked to appear at a hearing by telephone was improper. The hearing was to determine father’s allegation mother had violated the visitation provisions of the consent order awarding custody to her. The child had appealed. The best interests of the child are paramount and don’t appear to have been considered by the court:

The paramount concern in any custody or visitation determination is the best interests of the child … . “In order to modify a consent order granting sole custody to a parent, there must be a showing of a change [in] circumstances such that modification is required to protect the best interests of the child'” … . “Custody determinations should generally be made only after a full and plenary hearing and inquiry. This general rule furthers the substantial interest, shared by the State, the [child], and the parents, in ensuring that custody proceedings generate a just and enduring result that, above all else, serves the best interests of the child” … . Reversal or modification of an existing custody order “should not be a weapon wielded as a means of punishing a recalcitrant” or contemptuous parent … . Moreover, where no party has moved for a change in custody, a court may not modify an existing custody order in a non-emergency situation absent notice to the parties, and without affording the custodial parent an opportunity to present evidence and to call and cross-examine witnesses … .

Here, the Supreme Court improperly modified the consent order by changing custody from the mother to the father without the father having sought that relief in the petition, and without any apparent consideration of the child’s best interests … . The court’s award of custody to the father under the circumstances of this case also was improper in light of the father’s statements during the proceedings that he did not have a steady place to live with the child and that he did not wish to make an application for custody. Accordingly, we reverse the order and remit the matter to the Supreme Court … , for further proceedings on the father’s violation petition. We caution the Supreme Court to be mindful that determining the best interest of a child is a weighty responsibility, and that it ordinarily should not make such a determination without conducting an evidentiary hearing. Matter of Noel v Melle, 2017 NY Slip Op 05226, 2nd Dept 6-28-17

 

You might also like
Village’s Actual Notice of a Sidewalk Defect Does Not Override Written Notice Requirement
A BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION IS NOT PROPERLY CONVERTED TO AN ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING; HERE THE PHYSICIAN SUED THE HOSPITAL FOR FAILING TO HONOR A CONTRACTUAL COMMITMENT TO ADMIT PLAINTIFF TO A RESIDENCY PROGRAM; THE PHYSICIAN’S ACTION WAS PRECLUDED FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST THE ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES UNDER THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW (SECOND DEPT).
A POLICE OFFICER’S OR POLICE DEPARTMENT’S KNOWLEDGE OF AN ACCIDENT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE ESSENTIAL FACTS OF THE CLAIM BY THE MUNICIPALITY, REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
JUDGE SHOULD NOT, SUA SPONTE, HAVE RAISED ISSUES ABOUT THE ADEQUACY OF SERVICE BY MAIL WHICH WERE NOT RAISED OR ADDRESSED BY THE PARTIES; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; AMENDED COMPLAINT, FOR WHICH LEAVE OF COURT WAS NOT SOUGHT, WAS A NULLITY (SECOND DEPT). ​
AN ENTRY IN A HOSPITAL RECORD INDICATING PLAINTIFF FELL DOWN A FEW STAIRS WAS NOT GERMANE TO TREATMENT OR DIAGNOSIS AND WAS NOT AN ADMISSION BECAUSE THE SOURCE OF THE ENTRY WAS UNKNOWN; NEW TRIAL ORDERED IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT).
SUPREME COURT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DISMISS THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION PURSUANT TO CPLR 3216 OR CPLR 3215 (SECOND DEPT). ​
Management Agreement Did Not Give Rise to Tort Liability for Slip and Fall
THE PEOPLE FAILED TO COMPLETE PROVIDING DISCOVERY BY THE TIME THE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WAS FILED PURSUANT TO CPL 30.30 (5); DEFENDANT’S WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS GRANTED (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

THE RECORD SUPPORTED A NEGLECT FINDING BASED UPON FATHER’S ABUSE OF MOTHER,... FATHER TOLD THE COURT HE HAD RETAINED COUNSEL BUT COUNSEL COULD NOT ATTEND THE...