You are here: / / MOTHER’S CUSTODY PETITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED WITHOUT...

MOTHER’S CUSTODY PETITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED WITHOUT A HEARING; CUSTODY PETITION MAY BE HEARD JOINTLY WITH A PERMANENCY HEARING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined than mother’s petition for custody should not have been dismissed without a hearing and noted that a custody petition may be heard jointly with a permanency hearing:

The appeal from the order dated September 27, 2018, has not been rendered academic by the permanency hearing order dated November 13, 2018, which apparently changed the permanency goal from working toward legal guardianship by the maternal grandmother to guardianship by a different relative. The order appealed from denied the mother’s petition for custody, and the issue of whether that order was proper will continue to affect the mother’s rights … .

Custody determinations should “[g]enerally be made only after a full and plenary hearing and inquiry” … . Here, the record does not reveal the existence of circumstances that would bring this case within the narrow exception to the general right to a hearing … .

However, the petition for custody may be heard jointly with any permanency hearing held pursuant to Family Court Act article 10-A (see Family Ct Act § 1089-a[a] …). Matter of Barcene v Parrilla, 2019 NY Slip Op 07575, Second Dept 10-23-19

 

You might also like
Child’s Out-Of-Court Statements Insufficient to Support Abuse Finding
Grant of Custody to Maternal Grandparents Rather than Parent Reversed
Tenant Has Duty to Keep Premises Reasonably Safe
MOTHER’S PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING.
SIDEWALK RISE OF A LITTLE OVER AN INCH WAS A NON-ACTIONABLE TRIVIAL DEFECT.
Injury While Trying to Prevent a Ladder (Used by a Co-worker) from Falling Is Covered Under Labor Law 240 (1)
Question of Fact About Whether Plaintiff Had Standing to Bring Foreclosure Proceeding
THE “BUILDING” DEFENDANTS AND THE COMPANY WHICH INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED THE AIR CONDITIONING UNIT WHICH ALLEGEDLY LEAKED WATER ON THE FLOOR WERE NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE; THE LANDLORD DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS AN OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD; THE “BUILDING” DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE CONDITION; AND THE COMPANY WHICH INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED THE AIR CONDITIONER DID NOT SHOW IT DID NOT LAUNCH AND INSTRUMENT OF HARM (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

UNLOADING A HEAVY AIR CONDITIONING COIL FROM A TRUCK IS AN ACTIVITY COVERED... THE ZONE OF DANGER THEORY OF LIABILITY IS AVAILABLE ONLY TO THE IMMEDIATE RELATIVES...