You are here: / / FATHER’S PETITION FOR A MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY, REQUESTING AN AWARD...
, ,

FATHER’S PETITION FOR A MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY, REQUESTING AN AWARD OF SOLE CUSTODY, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, over a dissent, in a decision too comprehensive to fairly summarize here, determined father’s petition for a modification of custody (awarding him sole custody) should not have been granted:

… Family Court’s determination that there was a change of circumstances since the issuance of the prior custody order such that an award of sole legal and physical custody to the father was required to protect the best interests of the child lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record … . * * *

… Family Court also placed undue weight on an alleged suicide attempt by the mother in 2013, which predated the award of sole legal and residential custody to the mother in 2018 by several years, and thus, could not constitute a “change of circumstances since the [prior] custody determination” … . …

… Family Court failed to afford sufficient weight to conduct by the father which militated against awarding him sole custody. In particular, the mother testified that the father did not allow her to speak to the child by phone, Facetime, or other means while the child was at the father’s home. …

… Family Court failed to afford sufficient weight to conduct by the father which militated against awarding him sole custody. In particular, the mother testified that the father did not allow her to speak to the child by phone, Facetime, or other means while the child was at the father’s home. Matter of Paige v Paige, 2022 NY Slip Op 00866, Second Dept 2-9-22

 

You might also like
IN DENYING THE STATE POLICE’S REQUEST FOR AN EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER (ERPO) AGAINST THE 18-YEAR-OLD RESPONDENT, THE JUDGE FOCUSED ON THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE RESPONDENT HAD ACCESS TO FIREARMS TO THE EXCLUSION OF EVIDENCE RESPONDENT POSED A RISK OF SERIOUS HARM TO HIMSELF OR OTHERS; NEW HEARING ORDERED (THIRD DEPT). ​
THE ESTATE IS NOT A NECESSARY PARTY IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE REFEREE’S FINDINGS WERE BASED UPON UNPRODUCED BUSINESS RECORDS (SECOND DEPT).
COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED DISMISSAL/SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS ON A GROUND NOT RAISED IN OPPOSITION AND ON TECHNICAL GROUNDS WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN IGNORED.
IN HIS MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA TO CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF WEAPONS, DEFENDANT CLAIMED HE DID NOT KNOW THE WEAPONS, WHICH BELONGED TO SOMEONE ELSE, WERE STORED AT HIS MOTHER’S HOUSE, WHERE HE DID NOT RESIDE; THIS CLAIM OF INNOCENCE (POSSESSION WAS NOT “VOLUNTARY”) WAS SUFFICIENTLY SUPPORTED TO WARRANT A HEARING ON THE MOTION TO WITHDRAW THE PLEA (SECOND DEPT).
WHETHER FAMILY COURT HAS SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OVER THIS FAMILY OFFENSE PROCEEDING DEPENDS ON WHETHER THERE EXISTS AN “INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP” BETWEEN THE CHILD AND THE RESPONDENT, THE PARAMOUR OF PETITIONER’S FORMER HUSBAND; BEFORE THE COURT CAN RULE ON THE JURISDICTION ISSUE A HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER THERE IS AN “INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP” IS REQUIRED; MATTER REMITTED (SECOND DEPT).
WHETHER THE AGREEMENT TO ARBITRATE IS VALID IS A THRESHOLD ISSUE FOR THE COURT, NOT THE ARBITRATOR (SECOND DEPT). ​
COUNTY COURT DECIDED TO ANONYMIZE POTENTIAL AND EMPANELED JURORS IN THIS MURDER TRIAL; THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED THE ANONYMIZED JURY DID NOT CONSTITUTE A MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR AND DID NOT WARRANT INTERVENTION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE; THE TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT ARGUED THE EFFECT OF THE ANONYMIZED JURY ON THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE WARRANTED REVERSAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (THIRD DEPT).
Worker Taking Onsite Measurements for Offsite Fabrication Covered Under Labor Law 240 (1)

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

FATHER ALLEGED CHANGES IN HIS WORK SCHEDULE ALLOWED MORE TIME FOR PARENTAL ACCESS... THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANTS’...