You are here: / / THE SEPARATION AGREEMENT PROVIDED THAT THE PARTIES “SHALL”...
, , ,

THE SEPARATION AGREEMENT PROVIDED THAT THE PARTIES “SHALL” CONSULT EACH OTHER ON HEALTH DECISIONS FOR THE CHILD BUT FATHER HAD THE CHILD INOCULATED WITHOUT CONSULTING MOTHER; BECAUSE THE PARTIES AGREED THE CHILD WOULD ATTEND PUBLIC SCHOOL, AND INOCULATION IS REQUIRED BY THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW, MOTHER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE SHE WAS PREJUDICED BY THE BREACH OF THE SEPARATION AGREEMENT; THEREFORE MOTHER’S MOTION TO HOLD HUSBAND IN CONTEMPT WAS PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly denied defendant-mother’s motion to hold plaintiff-father in contempt for having the child inoculated for common childhood diseases. The separation agreement required that the parties consult each other on health decisions for the child. Father did not consult with mother before having the child inoculated. The separation agreement did not unequivocally prohibit plaintiff from having the child inoculated and the parties agreed the child would attend public school, for which inoculation is required. Therefore defendant was unable to demonstrate a violation of the separation agreement which prejudiced her:

The separation agreement provided that “[t]he parties shall continue to cooperate and consult with one another to arrive at decisions which they believe are in the best interest of the [c]hild with respect to health.” Despite this language, on two occasions, the plaintiff, without first consulting with the defendant, took the child, who had not received any vaccinations since the age of two, to get vaccinated.

However, the parties’ separation agreement did not unequivocally prohibit the plaintiff from having the child inoculated. Moreover, in light of the parties’ express intention to maintain the child’s enrollment in public education, and New York State’s then newly enacted public school vaccine mandate requiring such inoculations in order for the child to continue to attend public school (see Public Health Law § 2164; C.F. v New York City Dept. of Health & Mental Hygiene, 191 AD3d 52, 70), the defendant cannot demonstrate that she was prejudiced by the failure of the plaintiff to consult with her prior to having the child inoculated. Heffer v Krebs, 2021 NY Slip Op 04542, Second Dept 7-29-21

 

You might also like
IN THIS RESENTENCING PROCEEDING, THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED DEFENDANT’S CONDUCT SINCE THE ORIGINAL SENTENCE WAS IMPOSED IN 1998-99 AND SHOULD HAVE ORDERED AN UPDATED PRESENTENCE REPORT WHICH INCLUDED AN INTERVIEW WITH DEFENDANT (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT SUPERVISED AND DIRECTED PLAINTIFF’S WORK AND WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS A SPECIAL EMPLOYEE UNDER THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE LABOR LAW 200 AND NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED.
Notice of Claim Deemed Insufficient to Allege Negligent Design or Construction of Road
MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON THE GROUND THAT PLAINTIFF HAD NOT YET MOVED TO BE APPOINTED GUARDIAN AD LITEM FOR HER COMATOSE HUSBAND (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF RPAPL 1304 AND THE MORTGAGE; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
BY SUBMITTING PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION TESTIMONY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION DEFENDANT FAILED TO MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE MOTION WAS PROPERLY DENIED WITHOUT CONSIDERATION OF THE OPPOSING PAPERS (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE MISTAKENLY ORDERED THE SALE OF MULTIPLE LOTS, WHICH WAS IMPOSSIBLE BECAUSE A SINGLE BUILDING SPANNED THE THREE LOTS, THE MOTION COURT PROPERLY DEEMED THE PROPERTY TO HAVE BEEN SOLD AS A SINGLE LOT, COURT HAS THE POWER TO CORRECT A MISTAKE, SUA SPONTE, WHERE THERE IS NO PREJUDICE (SECOND DEPT).
Former Parking Enforcement Officer Entitled to Hearing Re: Whether Town Abolished Her Civil Service Position in Bad Faith

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 NYC BOARD OF STANDARDS AND APPEALS (BSA) PROPERLY APPROVED THE CONSTRUCTION... THE CLIMATOLOGICAL RECORDS WERE NOT CERTIFIED AS BUSINESS RECORDS AND THEREFORE...