You are here: / / FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE MADE RULINGS ON CUSTODY AND MOTHER’S...

FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE MADE RULINGS ON CUSTODY AND MOTHER’S PETITION TO RELOCATE BEFORE COMPLETING THE HEARING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined Family Court should not have awarded sole custody of daughter to mother and granted mother’s petition to relocate without completing the hearing:

The mother commenced this proceeding against the father seeking to modify a prior order of custody so as to award her sole legal and physical custody of the parties’ two children and permit her to relocate with both children to the State of Washington. The Family Court commenced a hearing and, prior to the completion of the hearing … modified the prior order so as to award the father sole legal and physical custody of the parties’ son and so as to award the mother sole legal and physical custody of the parties’ daughter and permit her to relocate with the daughter to the State of Washington. …

Here, where there were many controverted issues, the Family Court should not have awarded the mother sole custody of the parties’ daughter and permitted her to relocate with the daughter prior to completing the hearing. The father had not had the opportunity to present a case and was deprived of the opportunity to cross-examine a key witness called by the mother. Moreover, the court failed to give proper consideration to the effect that the daughter’s relocation from New York to the State of Washington would have on the relationship between the siblings, especially given the mother’s stated willingness to remain in New York … . Matter of Pinto v Pinto, 2019 NY Slip Op 08195, Second Dept 11-13-19

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF ROOFER WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION BECAUSE HE FELL THROUGH AN UNPROTECTED HOLE IN THE ROOF WHICH WAS COVERED ONLY BY A SHEET OF BLACK PLASTIC; THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF HAD UNTIED HIS SAFETY HARNESS SO HE COULD ASSIST A CO-WORKER DID NOT PRECLUDE SUMMARY JUDGMENT BECAUSE COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE IS NOT RELEVANT UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANTS OWN ADJOINING LOTS ORIGINALLY CONVEYED BY THE SAME GRANTOR WITH A RESTRICTION ALLOWING ONLY ONE RESIDENCE PER LOT; PLAINTIFF HAD THE REQUISITE “VERTICAL PRIVITY” TO ENFORCE THE RESTRICTION WHEN DEFENDANTS SOUGHT TO SUBDIVIDE THEIR LOT; DEFENDANTS RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE COVENANT WAS UNENFORCEABLE DUE TO RPAPL 1951 BECAUSE THE AREA HAD CHANGED (SECOND DEPT).
THE FACT THAT THE SCHOOL WAS AWARE OF THE PETITIONERS’ CHILD’S INJURY AT THE TIME IT OCCURRED DOES NOT MEAN THE SCHOOL HAD TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE POTENTIAL LAWSUIT; PETITIONERS’ APPLICATION TO DEEM A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM TIMELY SERVED SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Exclusion from Uninsured Motorist Coverage and Related Coverage Limitations In Policy Issued in Ohio Not Valid in New York
THE PLAINTIFF BICYCLIST COULD NOT IDENTIFY THE CAUSE OF HIS FALL AND THE CITY DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF ANY ROADWAY DEFECTS IN THE AREA; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Absence of a Safety Device Which Would Reduce the Functionality of a Table Saw is Not a Design Defect–Criteria Explained
Upward Departure Proper In Light of Felony Conviction Not Considered in the Risk Assessment–Criteria for Upward Departure Explained In Some Detail
A STORM DRAIN ALLEGEDLY CAUSED FLOODING ON PLAINTIFFS’ PROPERTY; THE NEGLIGENT DESIGN CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE VILLAGE ACCRUED WHEN THE STORM DRAIN WAS INSTALLED, NOT WHEN THE FLOODING OCCURRED, AND WAS TIME-BARRED (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 LOFT BOARD PROPERLY REJECTED TENANTS’ REQUEST TO WITHDRAW THEIR APPLICATIONS... MOTHER’S MOTION TO VACATE THE ORDER FINDING SHE HAD NEGLECTED THE CHILDREN...