You are here: / / FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO DETERMINE IT WAS IN THE...
,

FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO DETERMINE IT WAS IN THE CHILD’S BEST INTERESTS TO BE WITH FATHER IN THIS TEMPORARY CUSTODY PROCEEDING, ALLEGATIONS OF EXCESSIVE CORPORAL PUNISHMENT REQUIRED A HEARING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined questions of fact about father’s use of corporal punishment required a hearing in this temporary custody matter about whether it was in the child’s best interests to be placed with father:

“[I]n any action concerning custody or [parental access] where domestic violence is alleged, the court must consider the effect of such domestic violence upon the best interest of the child, together with other factors and circumstances as the court deems relevant in making an award of custody” (…see Domestic Relations Law § 240[1]…). In addition, consideration may be given to the express wishes of older and more mature children, but such wishes are not dispositive … .

As a general rule, “a custody determination should be made only after a full and fair hearing at which the record is fully developed”… . Under the circumstances of this case, the Family Court did not have sufficient evidence before it to reach a sound conclusion that it was in the subject child’s best interests for the father to have temporary custody pending determination of the issue of permanent custody. Throughout the proceedings, there were controverted allegations of excessive corporal punishment by the father against the subject child and the court was informed that the subject child suffers from certain mental health issues that were being treated in Connecticut. Matter of Poltorak v Poltorak, 2018 NY Slip Op 08662, Second Dept 12-19-18

 

You might also like
THE PROCESS SERVER DID NOT EXERCISE DUE DILIGENCE IN LOCATING THE DEFENDANT BEFORE RESORTING TO “NAIL AND MAIL” SERVICE OF PROCESS; COMPLAINT DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
COTENANT ACQUIRED THE OTHER COTENANT’S INTEREST BY ADVERSE POSSESSION.
PLAINTIFF SERVED THE COMPLAINT ON NOVEMBER 27, 2018; DEFENDANT ATTEMPTED TO SERVE AN ANSWER, WHICH WAS REJECTED, ON JANUARY 9, 2019; DEFENDANT’S EXCUSE WAS “THE DELAY WAS CAUSED BY THE INSURANCE CARRIER;” THAT EXCUSE WAS INSUFFICIENT AND DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO ACCEPT THE ANSWER SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Action Against Governmental Entity Barred by Public Policy
DEFENDANT LANDLORD DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS AN OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF NOTICE OF THE ALLEGEDLY DANGEROUS CONDITION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE BANK USED THE CORRECT LANGUAGE IN ITS RPAPL 1304 NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE; THE LEGISLATION HAD BEEN AMENDED CHANGING “YOU COULD LOSE YOUR HOME” TO “YOU MAY BE AT RISK OF FORECLOSURE;” RPAPL 1304 MUST BE STRICTLY COMPLIED WITH (SECOND DEPT).
THE ESTATE OF THE HUSBAND WAS NOT A NECESSARY PARTY IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE PROPERTY PASSED TO THE WIFE UPON THE HUSBAND’S DEATH (SECOND DEPT).
ONE YEAR SUSPENSION OF PETITIONER’S DRIVER’S LICENSE SHOCKED ONE’S SENSE OF FAIRNESS, SUPREME COURT REVERSED, MATTER REMITTED TO THE COMMISSIONER OF MOTOR VEHICLES FOR IMPOSITION OF A 60 DAY SUSPENSION (SECOND 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

LOST NOTE AFFIDAVIT INSUFFICIENT BECAUSE UCC REQUIREMENTS NOT MET, PROOF OF... BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF REAL PROPERTY...