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
Concise Example of a Weight of the Evidence Review
DEFENSE DID NOT OPEN THE DOOR TO HEARSAY EVIDENCE OF A CODEFENDANT’S CONVICTION; CRITERIA FOR BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO HEARSAY RULE NOT MET; CONVICTIONS REVERSED.
LANDLORD DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO INSULATE A PIPE BECAUSE IT WAS PART OF THE HEATING SYSTEM, INFANT PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED BY CONTACT WITH THE HOT PIPE (FIRST DEPT).
Landlord May Not Withhold Consent for Continued Operation of a Sidewalk Cafe Where the Lease Contemplated the Operation of the Cafe (Which Had Been in Operation for 50 Years) and Where the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing Restricted the Landlord’s Ability to Withhold Consent/Erroneous Stipulated Fact Does Not Bind the Appellate Court
PLAINTIFF IN A LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6) ACTION NEED NOT SUBMIT AN AFFIDAVIT TO MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE; THE HEARSAY STATEMENTS REFERENCING OR ATTRIBUTED TO PLAINTIFF DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT (FIRST DEPT).
DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT TOO SEVERE A SANCTION FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE, RELEVANT LAW CLEARLY EXPLAINED.
DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION, DEFENDANT ALLEGED COUNSEL’S ADVICE ON THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS GUILTY PLEA WAS ERRONEOUS 1ST DEPT.
Neglect Finding Based On Single Incident Reversed.

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 © 2025 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...