You are here: / / AWARDING A PARENT DECISION-MAKING AUTHORITY FOR ANY MAJOR CHILD-RELATED...
,

AWARDING A PARENT DECISION-MAKING AUTHORITY FOR ANY MAJOR CHILD-RELATED ISSUE IS TANTAMOUNT TO MODIFYING A CUSTODY ARRANGEMENT TO AWARD SOLE CUSTODY TO THE DECISION-MAKING PARENT; SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE HELD A HEARING (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the custody arrangement should not have been modified in the absence of a hearing. The court noted that the award of decision-making authority for any major child-related issue on which the parties cannot agree is tantamount to the award of sole custody:

The Supreme Court erred by, in effect, granting, without a hearing, that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to modify the parties’ stipulation of settlement and judgment of divorce so as to award her sole legal custody of the child to the extent of awarding her final decision-making authority as to any major child-related issue about which the parties could not agree, and denying that branch of the plaintiff’s cross motion which was to modify the stipulation of settlement and judgment of divorce so as to award him sole legal custody. “‘[A] court may grant relief that is warranted by the facts plainly appearing on the papers on both sides, if the relief granted is not too dramatically unlike the relief sought, the proof offered supports it, and there is no prejudice to any party'” … . … There can be no question that the award of final decision-making authority is not “dramatically unlike” the relief requested, as decision making is part and parcel to legal custody. … [T]he court erred in granting this award without a hearing. The court’s determination that “neither party has established change in circumstances warranting an award of sole custody to either parent” is incongruous with the court’s determination to award the defendant final decision-making authority. Since it appears that the court believed that the parties made an evidentiary showing of a change in circumstances demonstrating a need for a change of decision-making authority to ensure the child’s best interests, a hearing on that issue was required … .  Trazzera v Trazzera, 2021 NY Slip Op 06208, Second Dept 11-10-21

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED UPON THE RIGHT OF SEPULCHER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; DEFENDANT HOSPITAL’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE FOUND BISHME’S DAUGHTER TO HAVE BEEN DERIVATIVELY ABUSED AND NEGLECTED BASED UPON BISHME’S ABUSE AND NEGLECT OF ANOTHER CHILD (SECOND DEPT).
DEFAMATORY REMARKS MADE AT A MUNICIPAL PUBLIC MEETING HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SUBSTANCE OF THE MEETING AND THEREFORE WERE NOT ABSOLUTELY PRIVILEGED, PLAINTIFF’S DEFAMATION ACTION PROPERLY SURVIVED A MOTION TO DISMISS (SECOND DEPT).
NYC RENT STABILIZATION RULES DO NOT APPLY TO A BUILDING CONVERTED FROM COMMERCIAL TO RESIDENTIAL USE AFTER 1974.
PLAINTIFF WAS RIDING HER BICYCLE ON A SIDEWALK WHEN SHE COLLIDED WITH DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE AS DEFENDANT WAS ATTEMPTING TO PULL OUT OF A PARKING LOT; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
​REMOVING SCAFFOLDS, LADDERS, ETC. FROM THE WORKSITE WAS “ANCILLARY” TO THE RENOVATION WORK AND THEREFORE PROTECTED BY LABOR LAW 240(1); THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S FALLING OFF THE TOP OF THE VAN WHERE HE WAS LOADING THE EQUIPMENT WAS COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1) (SECOND DEPT).
Providing a False Name During Booking Did Not Trigger the Need for a Miranda Warning
Court Has the Discretion to Deny a Motion to Change Venue Where the Statutory Time-Limits for the Demand and Motion Are Not Met—Discretion Not Abused Here

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

A NOTICE OF CLAIM IS NOT A PLEADING AND THEREFORE NEED NOT BE ANNEXED TO A SUMMARY... FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 CAN BE RAISED AT...