You are here: / / SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE MODIFIED THE PARENTAL ACCESS PROVISIONS OF...
,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE MODIFIED THE PARENTAL ACCESS PROVISIONS OF THE JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE WITHOUT HOLDING A HEARING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the parental access provisions of the judgment of divorce should not have been modified without holding a hearing:

“A party seeking a change in [parental access] or custody is not automatically entitled to a hearing, but must make an evidentiary showing sufficient to warrant a hearing” … . As a general matter, custody and parental access determinations should only be rendered after a full hearing … .However, this general right is not absolute … , and a hearing “is not necessary where the undisputed facts before the court are sufficient, in and of themselves, to support a modification of custody … .

The plaintiff made the necessary showing entitling him to a hearing regarding that branch of his motion which was to modify the parental access provisions of the judgment of divorce with respect to the child … . The record shows that there were disputed factual issues regarding the child’s best interests such that a hearing on modification of parental access was required … . Further, “[a] decision regarding child custody and parental access should be based on admissible evidence” … . Here, in making its determination, the Supreme Court relied solely on information provided at court conferences, and the hearsay statements and conclusions of the family specialist, whose opinions and credibility were untested by either party … . Katsoris v Katsoris, 2019 NY Slip Op 08833, Second Dept 12-11-19

 

You might also like
Procedure for Sentencing a Second Felony Offender Not Followed
HIGHWAY LAW ALLOWING AN UNUSED PUBLIC EASEMENT TO BE DECLARED ABANDONED DOES NOT APPLY WHERE THE MUNICIPALITY OWNS A FEE INTEREST IN THE ROADBED.
Question of Fact about Implied Physician-Patient Relationship In Malpractice Action
Bank Did Not Demonstrate It Had Possession of the Note Prior to Commencing Foreclosure Action—Bank Did Not Have Standing to Bring the Action
Motion to Intervene by Members of a De-Certified Class Should Have Been Granted—Class Members Allowed to Sue In Their Individual Capacities
DEFECT NOT TRIVIAL AS A MATTER OF LAW, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR A JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
28-YEAR PRE-INDICTMENT DELAY IN THIS MURDER CASE DID NOT VIOLATE DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS; DNA PROFILE STEMMING FROM DEFENDANT’S 2008 ARREST MATCHED BLOOD EVIDENCE FROM THE 1984 MURDER (SECOND DEPT).
INJURY NOT GRAVITY-RELATED, LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED.

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

TIME TO SERVE DEFENDANT, WHO LIVED IN INDIA, IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS... THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF REAL PROPERTY...