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
PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE WARRANT WHICH WAS THE BASIS FOR DEFENDANT’S ARREST WAS VALID, THE PAT-DOWN SEARCH WAS NOT JUSTIFIED AS A SAFETY MEASURE, SEIZED DRUGS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED.
ALTHOUGH THE PRE-ANSWER MOTION TO DISMISS THE ARTICLE 78 PETITION WAS PROPERLY DENIED, THE COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE GRANTED THE PETITION WITHOUT AFFORDING THE RESPONDENTS THE OPPORTUNITY TO ANSWER IT (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF THE PLEA AGREEMENT; COUNTY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED RESTITUTION WHICH WAS NOT ADDRESSED IN THE AGREEMENT (FOURTH DEPT).
A RULING ON A MOTION TO DISMISS DEALS ONLY WITH THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE PLEADINGS AND DOES NOT CONSTITUTE THE LAW OF THE CASE WITH RESPECT TO A SUBSEQUENT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FOURTH DEPT). ​
ALTHOUGH DISCLOSURE OF INSURER’S SUPPLEMENTAL UNDERINSURED MOTORIST (SUM) FILE IS NOT LIMITED TO THE TIME BEFORE THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE ACTION, THE ORDER TO DISCLOSE THE WHOLE FILE WAS IMPROPER, A PRIVILEGE LOG SHOULD BE CREATED FOLLOWED BY AN IN CAMERA REVIEW (FIRST DEPT).
The “Special Facts” Exception to the Retroactive Applicability of a Statute Does Not Apply/A Statute Cannot Be Interpreted to Render Language Superfluous/A Municipality Cannot Challenge the Constitutionality of a State Statute/Lack of Capacity to Sue Does Not Deprive the Court of Jurisdiction
PLAINTIFF WAS ACQUITTED OF CHARGES STEMMING FROM THE ALLEGED APPROPRIATION OF INSURANCE PROCEEDS DUE OTHER BENEFICIARIES AND THEN SUED TWO INSURANCE COMPANIES; THE CAUSES OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT, CONVERSION AND BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY DID NOT ACCRUE UPON ACQUITTAL AND WERE THERFORE TIME-BARRED (FOURTH DEPT).
State Court Did Not Have Subject Matter Jurisdiction Over “Dangerous Sex Offender” Civil Management Proceeding Because Defendant Would Not Be Released Upon Finishing State Sentence—Defendant Had 19 Years to Go on Federal Sentence

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...