You are here: / / FATHER, WHO WAS INCARCERATED, SHOULD HAVE BEEN PRODUCED FOR THE PROCEEDING...

FATHER, WHO WAS INCARCERATED, SHOULD HAVE BEEN PRODUCED FOR THE PROCEEDING TO APPOINT A GUARDIAN FOR THE CHILD, NEW HEARING ORDERED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined father, who was incarcerated, had a fundamental right to be heard in the guardianship proceeding and shouild have been produced in court:

The order, after a hearing at which the father was neither present nor represented, and upon the mother’s consent, granted the petition of Krystle L. B. to be appointed permanent guardian of the subject child. …

An incarcerated parent has a fundamental right to be heard in a proceeding impacting the care and control of his or her child … . Here, the incarcerated father’s rights were violated when the Family Court elected to hear and determine the guardianship petition without producing the father in court or affording him an opportunity to be heard.

Accordingly, we reverse the order appealed from, and remit the matter … for a hearing at which the father’s constitutional right to be heard will not be abridged and a new determination thereafter on the guardianship petition. Matter of Krystle L.B. v Crystal L.W., 2018 NY Slip Op 08019, Second Dept 11-21-18

FAMILY LAW (FATHER, WHO WAS INCARCERATED, SHOULD HAVE BEEN PRODUCED FOR THE PROCEEDING TO APPOINT A GUARDIAN FOR THE CHILD, NEW HEARING ORDERED (SECOND DEPT))/GUARDIANSHIP (FATHER, WHO WAS INCARCERATED, SHOULD HAVE BEEN PRODUCED FOR THE PROCEEDING TO APPOINT A GUARDIAN FOR THE CHILD, NEW HEARING ORDERED (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
Grand Jury Testimony Given a Year After the Relevant Event Should Not Have Been Admitted as “Past Recollection Recorded”—New Trial Ordered
Criteria for Setting Aside a Verdict As a Matter of Law and Setting Aside a Verdict As Against the Weight of the Evidence Explained
PROPER VENUE FOR CONSOLIDATED ACTIONS STARTED IN DIFFERENT COUNTIES IS THE COUNTY WHERE THE FIRST ACTION WAS STARTED.
ALTHOUGH TRADER JOE’S APPARENTLY DID NOT OWN THE PARKING LOT WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL, IT FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT OCCUPY, CONTROL OR MAKE SPECIAL USE OF THE PARKING LOT; TRADER JOE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM IN THIS PEDESTRIAN HIT-AND-RUN ACTION WAS NOT AUTOMATICALLY ASSIGNED TO THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT INDEMNIFICATION CORPORATION WHEN PLAINTIFF ACCEPTED A SETTLEMENT; PLAINTIFF’S ACTION AGAINST THE DEFENDANT TAXICAB COMPANY AND THE DRIVERS WHO WERE ON DUTY WHEN PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK’S MOTION TO VACATE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED BECAUSE OF THE BANK’S UNEXCUSED FAILURE TO APPEAR AT A SCHEDULED CONFERENCE IN VIOLATION OF 22 NYCRR 202.27(c) (SECOND DEPT).
Purchaser of Real Property, Who Is Aware of a Pending Lawsuit Involving the Property When the Purchase Is Made, Is Bound By the Outcome of the Lawsuit
Criteria for Vicarious Liability of Hospital for Actions of Non-Employee Physician Explained (Not Met Here)

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

SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE PRECLUDED DEFENDANT FROM INTRODUCING CERTAIN EVIDENCE... FAMILY COURT’S FINDING THAT FREEING THE CHILD FOR ADOPTION WOULD NOT BE...