You are here: / / DESPITE FATHER’S PRO SE MOTION SEEKING VISITATION, NO PROVISION FOR...

DESPITE FATHER’S PRO SE MOTION SEEKING VISITATION, NO PROVISION FOR VISITATION WAS MADE IN THE CUSTODY ORDER, MATTER REMANDED FOR A HEARING (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, remanding the matter for a hearing in Family Court, noted that the final custody order did not make any provision for visitation:

… [T]he final custody order did not make any provision for visitation, and the father’s pro se motion explicitly sought visitation with the child. Family Court implicitly denied this request without providing any rationale. Visitation is a joint right of the child and noncustodial parent and, absent “exceptional circumstances,” it “follows almost as a matter of course,” and is presumed to be in the child’s best interest … . The record of the custody hearing established that the father had regular unsupervised and overnight visitation with the child throughout the prolonged custody proceedings, although there were some late pickups and missed visits in the months before the custody order was issued. We note the child’s attorney represents that the child strongly wishes to resume visits with the father … . Matter of Jolanda K. v Damian B., 2018 NY Slip Op 07675, First Dept 11-13-18

FAMILY LAW (VISITATION, DESPITE FATHER’S PRO SE MOTION SEEKING VISITATION, NO PROVISION FOR VISITATION WAS MADE IN THE CUSTODY ORDER, MATTER REMANDED FOR A HEARING (FIRST DEPT))/VISITATION (FAMILY LAW, DESPITE FATHER’S PRO SE MOTION SEEKING VISITATION, NO PROVISION FOR VISITATION WAS MADE IN THE CUSTODY ORDER, MATTER REMANDED FOR A HEARING (FIRST DEPT))

You might also like
THE COMPLAINT SUFFICIENTLY STATED FACTS AMOUNTING TO A BREACH-OF-FIDUCIARY-DUTY CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT REAL ESTATE BROKER, DESPITE PLAINTIFF-SELLER’S CONSENT TO THE BROKER’S “DUAL AGENCY;” IT WAS ALLEGED THE BROKER WAS AWARE THE PROPERTY WAS TO BE SUBDIVIDED AND SOLD BY THE BUYERS FOR THREE TIMES THE PRICE AND SHE WOULD BE THE BUYERS’ BROKER FOR THE SUBSEQUENT SALES (FIRST DEPT). ​
Defendant Handcuffed, Post-Arrest Search of Backpack Unlawful
Demand for Jury Trial Properly Struck/Rescission Was Core of Action and Counterclaim
THE CONSENT-SEARCH PROBATION CONDITION WAS NOT WARRANTED IN THIS DWI CASE; THERE WAS A COMPREHENSIVE TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF, ON A BICYCLE, WAS STRUCK BY A BUS AND SUFFERED TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY, A TORN ROTATOR CUFF AND SEVERAL HERNIATED DISCS; THE JURY’S DAMAGES AWARDS, WHICH INCLUDED $0 FOR FUTURE PAIN AND SUFFERING AND PAST AND FUTURE LOST WAGES, WERE DEEMED UNREASONABLE; NEW TRIAL ON DAMAGES ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).
THERE IS NO BRIGHT-LINE MINIMUM HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL FOR AN ELEVATION HAZARD PURSUANT TO LABOR LAW 240(1); HERE A FALL OF 10.5 TO 20 INCHES FROM A STACK OF PALLETS WARRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENSE COUNSEL TOLD THE COURT DURING THE PRE-TRIAL SUPPRESSION HEARING THAT DEFENDANT WAS NOT CONTESTING HIS CONSENT TO THE INTOXILYZER BREATH TEST; SUPREME COURT PROPERLY DENIED DEFENDANT’S ATTEMPT TO RAISE THAT SAME SUPPRESSION ISSUE DURING TRIAL; THE DISSENT DISAGREED (FIRST DEPT).
THE PURPORTED WAIVER OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DEFENSE WAS NOT IN WRITING AS REQUIRED BY GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW 17-103, PLAINTIFF’S BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION IS TIME-BARRED (FIRST 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

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF-DECEDENT’S INJURY WAS CAUSED BY A TIPPING... PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE...