You are here: / / A NEW HEARING ON FATHER’S PETITION TO RELOCATE IS REQUIRED BECAUSE...

A NEW HEARING ON FATHER’S PETITION TO RELOCATE IS REQUIRED BECAUSE THE COURT MAY HAVE PLACED TOO MUCH EMPHASIS ON THE CHILD’S ENROLLMENT IN A PARTICULAR SCHOOL AS THE BASIS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined a new hearing on father’s relocation petition was required because the court may have put too much emphasis on the child’s enrollment in a particular school:

Family Court determined that it was in the best interests of the child to award the father physical custody of the child and to permit the child to relocate to New York City. In making this determination, we note that the court took into account the child’s relationship with the family members in each parties’ household, the child’s current school and Promise Academy, the parties’ relative fitness to provide a safe and healthy environment and the structure in each household to support the child’s educational needs. The court, however, conditioned such change of custody and relocation upon the child’s enrollment in Promise Academy for the 2017-2018 school year. In our view, by imposing such condition, the court erroneously elevated the child’s matriculation at Promise Academy from one factor to be considered in the best interests analysis to the sole dispositive factor. Inasmuch as no one factor is dispositive … , the order must be reversed and a new hearing to be conducted on the father’s modification petition within 20 days of this Court’s decision. Matter of Lionel PP. v Sherry QQ., 2019 NY Slip Op 02398, Third Dept 2-28-19

 

You might also like
Defendant-Doctor in a Medical Malpractice Action May Be Questioned (by the Plaintiff) As an Expert About His Own Treatment of Plaintiff
PETITIONER, A POLICE PARAMEDIC, INJURED HIS SHOULDER WHEN THE RETRACTABLE PORTION OF A STRETCHER JAMMED; THE UNEXPECTED EQUIPMENT MALFUNCTION WAS AN “ACCIDENT” ENTITLING PETITIONER TO ACCIDENTAL DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S PLEA COLLOQUY NEGATED AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT (JURAT) OF HIS PERJURY CONVICTIONS; PLEA VACATED (THIRD DEPT).
DNA EVIDENCE WAS STRONG EVIDENCE DEFENDANT WAS THE ROBBER, DESPITE THE DNA MATCH, THE FULL CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE JURY INSTRUCTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN, NEW TRIAL ORDERED; PROSECUTOR’S STATEMENT IN SUMMATION THAT THE BLOOD BELONGED TO THE ROBBER WAS IMPROPER.
DEFENDANT ARGUED HAD SHE BEEN INFORMED DEPORTATION WAS NOT AN ISSUE SHE WOULD HAVE PLED GUILTY AND THEREBY AVOIDED THE LONGER SENTENCE IMPOSED AFTER TRIAL, HEARING ON MOTION TO SET ASIDE HER CONVICTION ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD.
THERE IS NO NEED TO FILE AN AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE AFTER SERVICE OF A WARRANT AND NOTICE OF EVICTION; THE MATTER WAS CONSIDERED AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE (THIRD DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S VERIFIED COMPLAINT WAS NOT ‘DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE’ WITHIN THE MEANING OF CPLR 3211, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED BASED UPON ALLEGATIONS IN PLAINTIFF’S VERIFIED COMPLAINT (THIRD DEPT).
Claimant Was an Employee Notwithstanding a Written Agreement Describing Her as an Independent Contractor

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR’S INTERPRETATION OF A WAGE ORDER WHICH ALLOWED 24-HOUR... POLICE OFFICER HAD REASONABLE GROUNDS TO PULL OVER PETITIONER’S CAR AFTER...