You are here: / / FATHER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PRECLUDED FROM BRINGING FUTURE PARENTAL ACCESS...
,

FATHER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PRECLUDED FROM BRINGING FUTURE PARENTAL ACCESS PETITIONS WITHOUT COURT APPROVAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court in this modification of custody proceeding, determined father should not have been precluded from submitting future parental access petitions:

A party seeking modification of an existing custody or parental access order must demonstrate that there has been a change in circumstances such that modification is required to protect the best interests of the child… . “One who seeks a change in [parental access] is not automatically entitled to a hearing but must make a sufficient evidentiary showing of a material change of circumstances to warrant a hearing”… . However, where a facially sufficient petition has been filed, a full and comprehensive hearing is required to afford the parent a full and fair opportunity to be heard … .

Here, the Family Court should not have dismissed the father’s petition without a hearing. His evidentiary submissions were sufficient to warrant a hearing … .

The Family Court improvidently exercised its discretion in enjoining the father from filing any future parental access petitions without prior express written permission from the court. The court’s conclusion that the father had previously filed an “excessive number of petitions” was not supported by the record, nor was there any evidence that the father’s continued litigation had become abusive and vexatious … . Matter of Gonzalez v Santiago, 2018 NY Slip Op 08653, Second Dept 12-19-18

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT COLLEGE DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT CREATE OR HAVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION WHICH INJURED PLAINTIFF, A PORTION OF A LIGHT FIXTURE IN PLAINTIFF’S ON-CAMPUS ROOM FELL ON HER (SECOND DEPT).
Process Servers Outside of New York City Are Not Required to Keep a “Log Book
PLAINTIFF WAS NOT WEARING A HARD HAT AND WAS STRUCK IN THE HEAD BY DEBRIS DURING DEMOLITION WORK; PLAINTIFF ALLEGED THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE HEAD PROTECTION VIOLATED THE INDUSTRIAL CODE GIVING RISE TO A LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION; DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE JOB WAS NOT A HARD HAT JOB; THEREFORE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE POLICE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LAWFUL BASIS FOR IMPOUNDING DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE AND CONDUCTING AN INVENTORY SEARCH; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS THE SEIZED EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT ALLEGED HE WAS NOT SERVED WITH THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT WITHIN 120 DAYS OF FILING AND PLAINTIFF DID NOT FILE AN AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE WITH THE CLERK, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Action for Fraud Can Not Be Based Upon Same Allegations as Action for Breach of Contract​
FAILURE TO PROVIDE NOTICE TO COUNSEL OF THE CONTENTS OF JURY NOTES AND FAILURE TO MAKE A RECORD DEMONSTRATING MEANINGFUL NOTICE REQUIRED REVERSAL AND A NEW TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).
​ THE EXISTENCE OF A WRITTEN CONSULTING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES RELATING TO SALES AND MARKETING DID NOT, PURSUANT TO THE PAROL EVIDENCE RULE, PRECLUDE EVIDENCE OF AN ALLEGED ORAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE SAME PARTIES RELATING TO THE FORMATION AND OWNERSHIP OF A BUSINESS (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THE PROOF REQUIREMENTS FOR DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER CHANGED WHEN THE COURT... NO EVIDENCE THREE WEAPONS IN A SAFE WERE POSSESSED BY THREE SEPARATE ACTS, SENTENCES...