You are here: / / CUSTODY MODIFICATION PETITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED WITHOUT A HEARING...
,

CUSTODY MODIFICATION PETITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED WITHOUT A HEARING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, remitting the matter for a hearing, determined that Family Court should not have granted mother's modification and violation petitions without holding a hearing:

Where a facially sufficient petition has been filed, modification of orders relating to custody and visitation generally require a full and comprehensive hearing at which a parent is to be afforded a full and fair opportunity to be heard … . A decision regarding child custody and parental access should be based on admissible evidence … . Here, in making its determination, the Family Court relied solely on information provided at court conferences, and the hearsay statements and conclusions of the forensic evaluator, whose opinions and credibility were untested by either party … . The court should have conducted a hearing to ascertain the child's best interests before it modified the … Order … . Matter of Migliore v Santiago, 2018 NY Slip Op 06911, Second Dept 10-17-18

You might also like
Plaintiff Could Not Show Justifiable Reliance Upon Alleged Misrepresentations in a Stipulation
THE BANK’S NOTICE OF DEFAULT WHICH STATED THE MORTGAGE DEBT WOULD BE ACCELERATED IF THE ARREARS WERE NOT PAID IN 32 DAYS WAS A STATEMENT OF FUTURE INTENT AND DID NOT SERVE TO ACCELERATE THE DEBT; THEREFORE THE NOTICE DID NOT TRIGGER THE SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS AND THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS TIMELY BROUGHT (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF BROUGHT A PERSONAL INJURY ACTION AFTER FILING FOR BANKRUPTCY AND BEFORE THE BANKRUPTCY ESTATE WAS FULLY ADMINISTERED BUT DID NOT DISCLOSE THE CAUSE OF ACTION IN THE BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDING; DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO ASSERT THE JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL DEFENSE IN AN AMENDED ANSWER AND TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT).
Declaratory Judgment Finding that the Insurer Was Not Obligated to Defend or Indemnify the Insured Precluded, Under the Doctrine of Collateral Estoppel, Suit by Plaintiff Against the Insurer—Plaintiff Was In Privity with the Insured Pursuant to Insurance Law 3420 and Had No Greater Rights than the Insured
THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304; I.E., THE NOTICE MUST BE MAILED IN A SEPARATE ENVELOPE WITH NO OTHER MATERIALS, AND THE NOTICE MUST BE SENT SEPARATELY TO EACH BORROWER (SECOND DEPT).
THE DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT DID NOT NULLIFY THE COUNTERCLAIMS (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A DELAY IN DIAGNOSIS AFFECTED THE PROGNOSIS; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, DEFENDANT PULLED IN FRONT OF PLAINTIFF AFTER TURNING ON HIS TURN SIGNAL BUT PLAINTIFF ONLY HAD ONE OR TWO SECONDS TO REACT (SECOND DEPT).

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

INJURED POLICE OFFICER CAN RECEIVE BOTH WORKERS’ COMPENSATION AND GENERAL... IN THIS PATERNITY PROCEEDING THE COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED GENETIC MARKER...