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
FAILURE TO FILE PROOF OF SERVICE IS A CORRECTABLE DEFECT, PETITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED ON THAT GROUND.
A FINE NOT INCLUDED IN THE PLEA AGREEMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IMPOSED (SECOND DEPT).
PETITION TO STAY ARBITRATION IN THIS UNDERINSURED MOTORIST PROCEEDING WAS SERVED AFTER THE 20-DAY STATUTORY PERIOD FOR SERVICE AND WAS NOT SERVED IN THE MANNER REQUIRED BY THE STATUTE (CPLR 7503(c)); THEREFORE THE APPLICATION TO STAY ARBITRATION WAS JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY’S AFFIRMATION STATING HE NEVER RECEIVED THE PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION WAS NOT REBUTTED BY PLAINTIFF; THE COURT NEVER HAD JURISDICTION OVER THE MOTION AND THE RESULTING JUDGMENT WAS A NULLITY (SECOND DEPT).
THE UNDERWRITING GUIDELINES DID NOT SUPPORT THE UNDERWRITER’S CLAIM THAT THE LIFE INSURANCE POLICY WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ISSUED IF THE COMPANY HAD BEEN AWARE OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S HEART CONDITION; THEREFORE THE INSURANCE COMPANY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE, AS A MATTER OF LAW, THAT PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT MADE A MATERIAL MISREPRESENTATION (SECOND DEPT).
LABOR LAW 193 PROHIBITS AN EMPLOYER FROM REDUCING AN EMPLOYEE’S PAY TO COMPENSATE FOR THE EMPLOYEE’S ALLEGEDLY POOR PERFORMANCE; HERE THE EMPLOYER REDUCED PLAINTIFF’S PAY TO RECOUP COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH PLAINTFF’S TRAFFIC ACCIDENT WITH A COMPANY TRUCK (SECOND DEPT).
INSURER WAIVED THE CONTRACTUAL ISSUE WHETHER PETITIONER WAS A PASSENGER IN THE CAR BY NOT SEEKING A STAY OF ARBITRATION, THEREFORE THE ARBITRATOR EXCEEDED HIS POWERS BY FINDING PETITIONER WAS NOT A PASSENGER AT THE TIME OF THE HIT AND RUN ACCIDENT (SECOND DEPT).
THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYEE SUCH THAT THE PROTECTIONS OF THE LABOR LAW APPLY IN THIS LADDER-FALL CASE; DEFENDANT AGREED TO FIX PLAINTIFF’S CAR IN RETURN FOR PLAINTIFF’S FIXING THE ROOF OF DEFENDANT’S REPAIR SHOP (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

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...