You are here: / / FATHER’S PETITION TO MODIFY THE VISITATION ORDER, WHICH ALLOWED VISITATION...

FATHER’S PETITION TO MODIFY THE VISITATION ORDER, WHICH ALLOWED VISITATION AS MUTUALLY AGREED, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING, FATHER ALLEGED THE MUTUALLY AGREED VISITATION HAD BECOME UNTENABLE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined father’s motion to modify visitation should not have been denied without a hearing. The existing order allowed father visitation under mutually agreed circumstance. Father alleged mother had prohibited visitation for three years:

Although “[a] court cannot delegate its authority to determine visitation to either a parent or a child” … , it may order visitation as the parties may mutually agree so long as such an arrangement is not untenable under the circumstances … . Where, as here, a prior order provides for visitation as the parties may mutually agree, a party who is unable to obtain visitation pursuant to that order “may file a petition seeking to enforce or modify the order” … .

We agree with the father that the court erred in dismissing the modification petition without a hearing inasmuch as the father made “a sufficient evidentiary showing of a change in circumstances to require a hearing”… . Contrary to the mother’s contention, upon giving the petition a liberal construction, accepting the facts alleged therein as true, and according the father the benefit of every favorable inference… , we conclude that the father adequately alleged a change of circumstances insofar as the visitation arrangement based upon mutual agreement was no longer tenable given that the mother purportedly denied the father any contact with the child … . In addition, we note that, although the father is now incarcerated, there is a rebuttable presumption that visitation is in the child’s best interests … . Matter of Kelley v Fifield, 2018 NY Slip Op 02110, Fourth Dept 3-23-18

FAMILY LAW (VISITATION, FATHER’S PETITION TO MODIFY THE VISITATION ORDER, WHICH ALLOWED VISITATION AS MUTUALLY AGREED, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING, FATHER ALLEGED THE MUTUALLY AGREED VISITATION HAD BECOME UNTENABLE (FOURTH DEPT))/VISITATION (FAMILY LAW, MODIFICATION OF MUTUALLY AGREED VISITATION, FATHER’S PETITION TO MODIFY THE VISITATION ORDER, WHICH ALLOWED VISITATION AS MUTUALLY AGREED, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING, FATHER ALLEGED THE MUTUALLY AGREED VISITATION HAD BECOME UNTENABLE (FOURTH DEPT))

You might also like
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S SON’S INVOLVEMENT IN A DRAG RACE PRECLUDED RECOVERY FOR HIS DEATH IN AN ACCIDENT (FOURTH DEPT).
SENTENCING COURT DID NOT MAKE THE APPROPRIATE FINDINGS FOR THE IMPOSITION OF ELECTRONIC MONITORING, MATTER SENT BACK, BECAUSE THE LEGALITY OF THE SENTENCE IS IMPLICATED THE ISSUE NEED NOT BE PRESERVED FOR APPEAL (FOURTH DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATION OF A NEW INJURY IN A SUPPLEMENTAL BILL OF PARTICULARS SUBMITTED IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE MOTION COURT.
THE DUE PROCESS PRONG OF LONG-ARM JURISDICTION WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED WITH RESPECT THE GERMAN MANUFACTURER; IN ADDITION THE FAILURE TO WARN CAUSE OF ACTION WAS PREEMPTED BY THE FEDERAL MEDICAL DEVICE AMENDMENTS TO THE FDA REGULATIONS (FOURTH DEPT).
PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT IN AN ARTICLE 10 TRIAL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; A TRIABLE ISSUE HAD BEEN RAISED CONCERNING PETITIONER’S ABILITY TO CONTROL HIS SEXUAL CONDUCT.
DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE CAUSE OF ACTION FOR LEAD-PAINT EXPOSURE ACCRUED, THEREFORE THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED ON THE GROUND THAT THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD EXPIRED (FOURTH DEPT).
THE JUDGE DID NOT FOLLOW THE REQUIRED PROCEDURE FOR FINDING NEGLECT ON A GROUND NOT ALLEGED IN THE PETITION; TO DO SO, THE JUDGE MUST AMEND THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE PETITION TO CONFORM TO THE PROOF AND GIVE THE RESPONDENT TIME TO RESPOND TO THE AMENDED ALLEGATIONS; NEITHER WAS DONE; PETITION DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).
Court’s Sua Sponte Transfer of a Zoning-Related Case to Another County Was Improper; The Denial of a Request for a Variance Does Not Affect Real Property within the Meaning of CPLR 507

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

ALLOWING THE JURY TO HEAR INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S ADMISSIONS... COURT DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER TO IMPUTE INCOME TO A PARTY IN FAMILY COURT ACT...