You are here: / / FATHER’S PETITION FOR A MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY OR INCREASED PARENTAL...
,

FATHER’S PETITION FOR A MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY OR INCREASED PARENTAL ACCESS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT AN IN CAMERA INTERVIEW OF THE CHILD (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined father’s petition for joint custody or an expansion of parental access should not have been denied without an in camera interview of the child:

A modification of a court-ordered custody arrangement must be based upon a showing of a change in circumstances such that the modification is required to protect the best interests of the child … . A child’s changing needs as he or she grows older can sufficiently constitute a change in circumstances … .

Here, in light of the evidence presented by the father and assertions of the attorney for the child, the Family Court should not have determined the father’s petition without conducting an in camera interview with the child. “[W]hile the express wishes of children are not controlling, ‘they are entitled to great weight, particularly where their age and maturity would make their input particularly meaningful'” … . Matter of Coleman v Lymus, 2021 NY Slip Op 02389, Second Dept 4-21-21

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF PASSENGER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DEFENDANT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT THE LEAD DRIVER’S COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE 2ND DEPT.
Criteria for Dismissal of Cause of Action Based on Documentary Evidence Explained 
Excessive Intervention and Improper Conduct of Judge Required New Trial in Medical Malpractice Case
SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE ORDERED A NEW TRIAL UNLESS THE PARTIES STIPULATE TO REDUCED DAMAGES AWARDS; SUPREME COURT DID NOT HAVE TO POWER TO SUA SPONTE REDUCE THE DAMAGES AMOUNTS.
THE PROSECUTOR’S REMARKS REQUIRED REVERSAL AND A NEW TRIAL ON ONE COUNT (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S BARE DENIAL OF THE RECEIPT OF NOTICE OF THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS NOT A SUFFICIENT BASIS FOR GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
CLAIMANT IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) and 241(6) ACTION AGAINST THE STATE SERVED THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WITH THE NOTICE OF INTENTION TO FILE A CLAIM BUT NOT THE NEW YORK STATE THRUWAY AUTHORITY (NYSTA); ALTHOUGH THE EXCUSE (IGNORANCE OF THE LAW) WAS NOT VALID, THE ACTION HAD MERIT AND THE NYSTA HAD TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE FACTS; THEREFORE CLAIMANT’S MOTION TO SERVE AND FILE A LATE CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
No Notice of Defect Needed Where Municipality Affirmatively Created It.

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

PLAINTIFF POLICE OFFICER WAS INJURED CHANGING THE CARBON DIOXIDE CARTRIDGE FOR... FAMILY COURT’S DETERMINATION FATHER DID NOT SEXUALLY ABUSE HIS CHILD WAS...