You are here: / / RELOCATION AND CUSTODY MODIFICATION ISSUES REQUIRED A HEARING FOCUSING...

RELOCATION AND CUSTODY MODIFICATION ISSUES REQUIRED A HEARING FOCUSING ON THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the relocation/custody modification issues required a hearing focusing on the best interests of the child:

​

We agree with the father that the court erred in giving him a deadline to relocate within the 15-mile radius provided in the [Separation] Agreement without conducting a hearing, and that the court further erred in denying that part of the father’s cross motion seeking modification of the custody and visitation provisions of the Agreement, also without conducting a hearing. …

While ” [a] hearing is not automatically required whenever a parent seeks modification of a custody order’ ” … , here we conclude that the combined effect of the parties’ “relocation[s] was a change of circumstances warranting a reexamination of the existing custody arrangement” at an evidentiary hearing … . While the parties’ Agreement provided that the father must reside within a 15-mile radius of the mother’s residence upon her relocation, the overriding consideration in determining whether to enforce such a provision is the child’s best interests … .. It is impossible to determine on this record the effect on the child of enforcing or modifying the Agreement, and we conclude that the parties should be afforded an opportunity to present evidence concerning the child’s best interests. Shaw v Shaw, 2017 NY Slip Op 08138, Fourth Dept 11-17-17

 

FAMILY LAW (RELOCATION AND CUSTODY MODIFICATION ISSUES REQUIRED A HEARING FOCUSING ON THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD (FOURTH DEPT))/CUSTODY (FAMILY LAW, RELOCATION AND CUSTODY MODIFICATION ISSUES REQUIRED A HEARING FOCUSING ON THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD (FOURTH DEPT))

You might also like
ORDER OF PROTECTION ISSUED IN THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDING PROHIBITING CONTACT BETWEEN FATHER AND DAUGHTER SHOULD BE SUBJECT TO ANY SUBSEQUENT CUSTODY OR VISITATION ORDERS BY FAMILY OR SUPREME COURT (FOURTH DEPT).
Violation of an Industrial Code Provision Does Not Conclusively Establish Negligence in a Labor Law 241 (6) Action
THE ONE COUNT INDICTMENT WAS RENDERED DUPLICITOUS BY THE BILL OF PARTICULARS AND WAS DISMISSED AFTER TRIAL; THE APPELLATE COURT NOTED THAT EVEN IF THE EVIDENCE HAD BEEN NARROWED AT TRIAL, DISMISSAL WOULD STILL BE REQUIRED BECAUSE DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE PRETRIAL NOTICE OF THE CHARGES (FOURTH DEPT).
Business Not Liable for Slip and Fall on Abutting Icy Sidewalk/”Special Use” Doctrine Explained
DEPRIVING DEFENDANT OF HER RIGHT TO PRESENT A DEFENSE BY DEMONSTRATING THE COMPLAINANT HAD A MOTIVE TO LIE, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT, CROSS-EXAMINATION ABOUT DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO TURN HERSELF IN, AND ALLOWING A WITNESS TO TESTIFY DEFENDANT WAS A DRUG DEALER, ALL WARRANTED REVERSAL.
EMERGENCY PHYSICIAN ERRONEOUSLY PRONOUNCED PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT DEAD AND ALLEGEDLY REFUSED TO REEXAMINE HIM FOR NEARLY THREE HOURS, DESPITE THE PLEAS OF HIS FAMILY MEMBERS WHO ALLEGEDLY SAW HIM BREATHING, MAKING EYE CONTACT AND MOVING; SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE PROHIBITED THE PARTIES FROM MAKING STATEMENTS ABOUT THE FACTS OF THE CASE; THE NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).
THE CASE WAS REMITTED TO SUPREME COURT TO PROCURE A RULING ON WHETHER DEFENDANT SHOULD BE AFFORDED YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS; YET DEFENSE COUNSEL FOCUSED ON DEFENDANT’S SENTENCING AS AN ADULT AND ESSENTIALLY IGNORED THE “YOUTHFUL OFFENDER” ISSUE; DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL (FOURTH DEPT).
Plaintiff, a Pedestrian, Was Injured When a Traffic Sign Struck by a Car Broke Off and Hit Her—County Owed Plaintiff a Duty to Properly Install the Sign—Question of Fact Raised Whether Improper Installation of a “Break Away” Sign Was a Proximate Cause of the Plaintiff’s Injuries

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

PLAINTIFF’S SEX AND AGE DISCRIMINATION CAUSES OF ACTIONS, AS WELL AS A... QDRO WAS ENTERED IN VIOLATION OF THE SEPARATION AGREEMENT, SUPREME COURT SHOULD...