You are here: / / CUSTODY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN TRANSFERRED TO FATHER AND ALL CONTACT BETWEEN...
, ,

CUSTODY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN TRANSFERRED TO FATHER AND ALL CONTACT BETWEEN MOTHER AND CHILD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUSPENDED WITHOUT A HEARING, JUDGE, SUA SPONTE, SHOULD NOT HAVE PROHIBITED FUTURE PETITIONS FOR CUSTODY OR VISITATION BY MOTHER (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Family Court, determined the court should not have transferred custody to father and suspended all contact between the child and mother for a year without conducting a hearing. The First Department further held that the judge should not have, sua sponte, prohibited mother from filing future petitions for custody or visitation without leave of court because no party requested that relief:

… [T]he court erred when, without holding an evidentiary hearing, it made a final order transferring physical and legal custody to the father and suspending all contact between the mother and the child for a year. Determination of the child’s best interests requires examination of the totality of the circumstances … . We have consistently held that “an evidentiary hearing is necessary before a court modifies a prior order of custody or visitation,” even where the court is familiar with the parties and child, and particularly where there are facts in dispute … . Furthermore, while we have stated that a hearing on modification of a custody arrangement in the child’s best interests “may be as abbreviated, in the court’s broad discretion, as the particular allegations and known circumstances warrant. . . ,’ it must include an opportunity for both sides, and the children’s attorney when there is one, to present their respective cases, and the factual underpinnings of any temporary order [must be] made clear on the record'” … .

Here, the court made a final determination without taking any testimony or entering any documents into evidence. The court’s reliance on statements made by the ACS caseworker during a court conference was inappropriate, since the mother’s attorney had requested, but was denied, a full hearing at which counsel could have cross-examined the caseworker. Matter of Michael G. v Katherine C., 2018 NY Slip Op 08568, First Dept 12-13-18

 

You might also like
Property Owner Responsible for Defect in Sidewalk that Did Not Directly “Abut” Owner’s Property (Liability Based On New York City Ordinance).
Relief Granted By Court Went Too Far Beyond Relief Requested
Affirmative Defense of Recoupment Not Extinguished by Bankruptcy Sale
LOCAL RESIDENTS OPPOSING THE USE OF A HOTEL AS A HOMELESS SHELTER RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE CONFIGURATION OF THE BUILDING WOULD ALLOW ADEQUATE ACCESS BY FIREFIGHTERS (FIRST DEPT).
ALLEGATION THAT CHAIN OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED AND FELL WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS RELATES TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE WHICH DOES NOT PRECLUDE SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN PLAINTIFF’S FAVOR (FIRST DEPT).
A VIDEO CAMERA HAD BEEN INSTALLED IN A GRAPEFRUIT-SIZED HOLE BEHIND A TOILET IN A WOMEN’S RESTROOM AND VIDEO HAD BEEN RECOVERED; OVERRULING PRECEDENT, THE FIRST DEPARTMENT HELD THAT “EXTREME AND OUTRAGEOUS CONDUCT” IS NOT AN ELEMENT OF NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AND THAT CAUSE OF ACTION WAS REINSTATED (FIRST DEPT).
PROPERTY OWNER LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S FALL FROM A LADDER (UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1)) WHILE WORKING FOR A TENANT, EVEN IF THE OWNER WAS NOT AWARE THE TENANT HIRED THE PLAINTIFF, WHERE ONLY HEARSAY EVIDENCE IS OFFERED IN OPPOSITION TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT, A QUESTION OF FACT IS NOT RAISED (FIRST DEPT).
THE PARTIES HAD ALREADY STIPULATED TO RESTORE THE ACTION TO THE CALENDAR; THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE GRANTED PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO VACATE THE DISMISSAL OF THE ACTION FOR FAILURE TO APPEAR AT CONFERENCES OR OUTLINE REMAINING DISCOVERY (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER PLAINTIFF HAS STANDING IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION... QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL OCCURRED ON DEBRIS...