You are here: / / FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED INCARCERATED FATHER’S PRO SE...

FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED INCARCERATED FATHER’S PRO SE PETITION SEEKING VISITATION BASED UPON THE EXISTENCE OF TWO ORDERS OF PROTECTION, THE FAMILY COURT ORDER OF PROTECTION, BY LAW, EXPIRED AFTER ONE YEAR, NOT WITHSTANDING A 2022 EXPIRATION DATE IN THE ORDER, AND THE ORDER OF PROTECTION IN THE CRIMINAL MATTER DID NOT PERTAIN TO THE CHILDREN (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined the incarcerated father’s petition seeking visitation with his children should not have been dismissed based upon two orders of protection. Although the Family Court order of protection, on its face, was to expire in 2022, it could not, under the law, exceed one year. The Family Court order of protection therefore expired in 2016. As for the order of protection issued in a criminal proceeding, it did not specifically pertain to the children and Family Court does not have the authority to change it:

Family Court, among other things, issued an order of protection that prohibited the father from having contact with the children … and such order expires on January 22, 2022. This expiration date, however, was not permissible. In this regard, because of the biological relationship between the father and the children, the duration of this order of protection could not exceed one year from the disposition of the matter, subject to any further extensions … . … We therefore modify the order of protection to reflect an expiration date of March 2, 2016. …

The order of protection issued in connection with petitioner’s criminal matter is likewise inapplicable. We note that Family Court generally does not have the authority to countermand the dictates of a criminal court order of protection … . That said, the order of protection issued against the father in his criminal matter did not specifically pertain to the subject children. Matter of Pedro A. v Gloria A., 2019 NY Slip Op 00010, Third Dept 1-3-19

 

You might also like
CLAIMANT IS ENTITLED TO SIMULTANEOUSLY RECEIVE AN AWARD FOR A SCHEDULE LOSS OF USE AND A PERMANENT PARTIAL DISABILITY CLASSIFICATION (THIRD DEPT).
CLAIMANT, WHO WAS NOT EMPLOYED AT THE TIME COVID-PANDEMIC-RELATED UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS BECAME AVAILABLE, WAS NOT ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE THE COVID-PANDEMIC BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).
Revocation of Pistol Permit Upheld Despite Petitioner’s Acquittal on Related Criminal Charges—No Formal Revocation Hearing Is Required
ATTORNEY’S FEE PROPERLY REDUCED TO $450, FEE APPLICATION NOT PROPERLY FILLED OUT.
FAMILY COURT’S RELIGION-BASED DIRECTIVES IN THIS CUSTODY CASE WERE NOT WITHIN THE “BEST INTERESTS OF A CHILD” CATEGORIES OUTLINED IN THE SEMINAL CASE, ALDOUS V ALDOUS, AND WERE THEREFORE VACATED (THIRD DEPT). ​
Complaint Stated Causes of Action for a Constructive Trust and Quantum Meruit
ALTHOUGH COUNTY COURT ISSUED, ENTERED AND FILED A DECISION ADJUDICATING DEFENDANT A LEVEL THREE SEX OFFENDER, THERE WAS NO LANGUAGE INDICATING THE DECISION WAS A JUDGMENT OR AN ORDER; IN ADDITION, THE RISK ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT DID NOT INCLUDE “SO ORDERED” LANGUAGE; THEREFORE THERE WAS NO APPEALABLE ORDER BEFORE THE COURT AND THE APPEAL WAS DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).
THE CLAUSE OF THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT WHICH STATED THE AGREED FIREFIGHTER STAFFING LEVEL WAS 36 DID NOT BARGAIN AWAY THE MUNICIPALITY’S RIGHT TO ELIMINATE POSITIONS, THEREFORE THE MUNICIPALITY’S REFUSAL TO FILL A FIREFIGHTER VACANCY WAS NOT ARBITRABLE (THIRD 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

OIL AND GAS INVESTMENT SCHEME PROPERLY FOUND TO BE AN ABUSIVE TAX AVOIDANCE... GENERAL BUSINESS LAW 349 CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION...