You are here: / / FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE COMPLETED THE HEARING, AWARD OF PRIMARY PHYSICAL...

FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE COMPLETED THE HEARING, AWARD OF PRIMARY PHYSICAL CUSTODY OF THE CHILDREN TO THE MATERNAL GRANDMOTHER REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court, determined primary physical custody of the children should not have been awarded to the maternal grandmother because the proceedings were flawed:

“[A]s between a parent and a nonparent, the parent has a superior right to custody that cannot be denied unless the nonparent establishes that the parent has relinquished that right because of surrender, abandonment, persisting neglect, unfitness or other like extraordinary circumstances” … . “The nonparent has the burden of establishing that extraordinary circumstances exist even where, as here, the prior order granting custody of the child to [the] nonparent[] was made upon consent of the parties' ” … .

Here, the court erred in granting the grandmother's petition prior to the completion of the hearing. The mother's testimony was not complete, the grandmother had not yet rested, and the mother had not been afforded the opportunity to call witnesses or present other evidence on her own behalf. In addition, there were controverted issues inasmuch as there is no evidence in the record of the mother's mental health other than her erratic in-court conduct, which she attributed to the trauma of being separated from her children, and there is no evidence whatsoever that the mother was abusing drugs or alcohol. Indeed, she denied abusing alcohol. We conclude that the court should have completed the hearing. Matter of Driscoll v Mack, 2018 NY Slip Op 06640, Fourth Dept 10-5-18

FAMILY LAW (FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE COMPLETED THE HEARING, AWARD OF PRIMARY PHYSICAL CUSTODY OF THE CHILDREN TO THE MATERNAL GRANDMOTHER REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT))/CUSTODY (FAMILY LAW, FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE COMPLETED THE HEARING, AWARD OF PRIMARY PHYSICAL CUSTODY OF THE CHILDREN TO THE MATERNAL GRANDMOTHER REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT))

You might also like
GAP IN BATHROOM STALL DOOR AT MCDONALD’S RESTAURANT, IN WHICH INFANT PLAINTIFF’S FINGER WAS PINCHED AND PARTIALLY SEVERED WHEN THE DOOR SLAMMED SHUT, WAS NOT UNREASONABLY DANGEROUS AND WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS, TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).
THE MAJORITY HELD THAT THE SIX-YEAR DELAY BETWEEN WHEN THE PEOPLE WERE AWARE OF THE DNA EVIDENCE LINKING DEFENDANT TO THE RAPE AND DEFENDANT’S ARREST DID NOT DEPRIVE DEFENDANT OF DUE PROCESS; THE DISSENT DISAGREED (FOURTH DEPT).
EVEN THOUGH THE WRONG CORPORATION WAS NAMED IN THE CONTRACT DEFENDANT SIGNED AS PRESIDENT, DEFENDANT COULD NOT BE HELD PERSONALLY LIABLE, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
Complaint Did Not State a Cause of Action Against Mechanic Who Inspected Defendant’s Car—Plaintiff Did Not Allege the Mechanic Created or Exacerbated Any Dangerous Condition—Therefore the Complaint Did Not Allege the Mechanic Owed Plaintiff a Duty of Care
CIVIL CONTEMPT AIMS TO COMPENSATE THE OTHER PARTY FOR ANY LOSS ASSOCIATED WITH THE CONTEMPT (FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A COURT ORDER); CRIMINAL CONTEMPT AIMS TO PUNISH; THEREFORE A $250 A DAY FINE, ALTHOUGH APPROPRIATE FOR CRIMINAL CONTEMPT, WAS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR THE CIVL CONTEMPT AT ISSUE HERE (FOURTH DEPT).
THE AMENDED STATUTE CHANGING THE CRITERIA FOR NEGLECT BASED ON MARIHUANA USE WENT INTO EFFECT TWO DAYS BEFORE THE HEARING AND WAS NOT APPLIED TO THE FACTS; MATTER REMITTED (FOURTH DEPT).
THE LANGUAGE IN THE HIPAA FORM, INDICATING PLAINTIFF’S PHYSICIAN MAY BUT IS NOT OBLIGATED TO SPEAK WITH DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY, WAS PROPERLY APPROVED BY SUPREME COURT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION (FOURTH DEPT).
Defendant’s Motion to Vacate His Conviction, Supported by Evidence that (1) the People May Have Violated Their “Brady” Obligation to Inform the Defense of a Plea Deal Made In Return for Testimony and (2) a Juror May Have Had a Mental Disability, Should Not Have Been Denied Without a Hearing

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

OWNER OF PROPERTY WHERE THE EMPLOYEE SLIPPED AND FELL WAS NOT AN ADDITIONAL... COURT IMPROPERLY INCLUDED A PROVISION IN THE ORDER DENYING MOTHER’S PETITION...