You are here: / / FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE LEFT SCHEDULING SUPERVISED THERAPEUTIC PARENTAL...
,

FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE LEFT SCHEDULING SUPERVISED THERAPEUTIC PARENTAL ACCESS TO THE PARTIES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Family Court should not have left it to the parties to work out mother’s supervised therapeutic parental access:

Here, the Family Court’s determination that there had been a change in circumstances and that it was in the children’s best interests to award the father sole legal and residential custody, with the mother’s access limited to supervised therapeutic parental access is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record and, thus, will not be disturbed … .

However, the Family Court should have set forth in its order a schedule and designated a provider for supervised therapeutic parental access, rather than implicitly delegating the resolution of those issues to the parties … . Accordingly, we remit the matter to the Family Court, Orange County, to forthwith set an appropriate schedule and select a provider for the mother’s supervised therapeutic parental access with the children. Matter of Thomas R.K. v Tamara S.K., 2018 NY Slip Op 07725, Second Dept 11-14-18

FAMILY LAW (FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE LEFT SCHEDULING SUPERVISED THERAPEUTIC PARENTAL ACCESS TO THE PARTIES (SECOND DEPT))/JUDGES (FAMILY LAW, FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE LEFT SCHEDULING SUPERVISED THERAPEUTIC PARENTAL ACCESS TO THE PARTIES (SECOND DEPT))/DELEGATION OF JUDICIAL DUTIES (FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE LEFT SCHEDULING SUPERVISED THERAPEUTIC PARENTAL ACCESS TO THE PARTIES (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
“Special Exception Permit” Defined
PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT WAS CONCLUSORY AND SPECULATIVE AND RELIED ON FACTS NOT IN THE RECORD; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Question of Fact Whether Three-Family Residence Was Owner-Occupied–Administrative Code’s Exemption from Liability for Failure to Remove Ice and Snow May Not Apply
ONE DEFENDANT BREACHED A CONTRACT; THE OTHER DEFENDANT TORTIOUSLY INTERFERED WITH PLAINTIFF’S PROSPECTIVE BUSINESS RELATIONS; THE JURY AWARDED SEPARATE DAMAGE-AMOUNTS FOR EACH DEFENDANT; SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE HELD BOTH DEFENDANTS JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY LIABLE FOR THE COMBINED AMOUNT OF DAMAGES (SECOND DEPT). ​
A STENT WAS DELIBERATELY INSERTED IN PLAINTIFF DURING SURGERY IN 1993 AND WAS DISCOVERED AND REMOVED IN 2012, ALTHOUGH THE STENT SHOULD HAVE SUBSEQUENTLY BEEN REMOVED, BECAUSE IT WAS INSERTED INTENTIONALLY AND SERVED A SURGICAL PURPOSE IT WAS NOT A ‘FOREIGN OBJECT,’ THEREFORE THE DISCOVERY OF THE STENT IN 2012 DID NOT START THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, COMPLAINT DISMISSED AS TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).
Affidavits, Deposition Testimony, and Letters Are Not Considered “Documentary Evidence” Within the Meaning of CPLR 3211(a)(1)
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THAT PLAINTIFF PLED GUILTY TO A TRAFFIC OFFENSE DOES NOT PROVE SHE WAS NEGLIGENT; PLAINTIFF ALLEGED SHE PLED GUILTY BECAUSE SHE DID NOT HAVE THE MONEY TO DRIVE FROM HER HOME FOR COURT APPEARANCES (SECOND DEPT).
Post-Offense “Bad Acts” Erroneously Admitted (Harmless Error)

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

COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED THE PAYMENT OF ATTORNEY’S FEES FOR FRIVOLOUS... EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT NEGLECT FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE SHELTER, EVIDENCE...