You are here: / / A DECISION TO RETURN TO THE REGULAR ACCESS SCHEDULE OF PARENTING TIME AFTER...
, ,

A DECISION TO RETURN TO THE REGULAR ACCESS SCHEDULE OF PARENTING TIME AFTER A PERIOD OF SUPERVISED PARENTAL VISITS MUST BE BASED UPON ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE; WHERE FACTS REMAIN IN DISPUTE, A HEARING IS REQUIRED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that a hearing should have been held before granting defendant’s motion to return to the regular access schedule of parenting time because some facts were still in dispute:

… Supreme Court should have conducted an evidentiary hearing prior to directing that the regular access schedule as set forth in the parties’ stipulation of settlement be implemented immediately. Although the court based its determination on information contained in the parties’ applications, reports from Kids in Common, and statements from counsel for the parties and the attorney for the child during multiple conferences, Kids in Common had not yet advised that the child was ready for a fully normalized access schedule, and a decision regarding child custody and/or parental access should be based on admissible evidence … . Where, as here, facts material to a determination of what parental access is in the best interests of the child remain in dispute, a hearing is required … . Stolzenberg v Stolzenberg, 2022 NY Slip Op 05554, Second Dept 10-5-22

Practice Point: At the time defendant made a motion to return to the regular access schedule of parenting time after a period of supervised visitation facts remained in dispute. The motion should not have been granted without first holding a hearing where only admissible evidence is considered.

 

You might also like
REMOVAL OF THE CHILD FROM MOTHER’S CARE WAS NOT WARRANTED, NO SHOWING OF AN IMMINENT THREAT TO THE CHILD’S LIFE OR HEALTH (SECOND DEPT).
Preclusion Proper Remedy for Failure to Comply with Discovery Deadlines and Requests
IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED MEDICAL RECORDS PERTAINING TO PLAINTIFF’S PRIOR ANKLE INJURY WERE MATERIAL AND NECESSARY TO THE DEFENSE; DISCOVERY OF THOSE RECORDS SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THERE WAS A STORM IN PROGRESS AT THE TIME OF THE SLIP AND FALL, THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE ICE FORMED AFTER A PRIOR STORM AND WHETHER THE DEFENDANTS HAD CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE CONDITION OF THE SIDEWALK; DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
42 USC 1983 AND MALICIOUS PROSECUTION CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE CITY AND A POLICE OFFICER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION WAS INJURED WHEN THE ROOF OF THE BUILDING COLLAPSED, HIS ACTION AGAINST HIS EMPLOYER (A DEMOLITION COMPANY) WAS BARRED BY THE EXCLUSIVITY PROVISIONS OF THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE COLLAPSE WAS FORESEEABLE IN THE ACTION AGAINST THE BUILDING OWNER, EVIDENCE THAT BEAMS HAD BEEN CUT WAS INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY (SECOND DEPT).
THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT PRODUCED FOR SENTENCING; HIS RIGHT TO BE PRESENT AT SENTENCING WAS THEREFORE VIOLATED, REQUIRING REMITTAL FOR RESENTENCING (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE COMPLAINANT IDENTIFIED THE DEFENDANT FROM A PHOTO ARRAY IN A PROCEDURE CONDUCTED BY A POLICE OFFICER, THERE WAS NO PROOF OF THE BASIS FOR DEFENDANT’S ARREST BY ANOTHER OFFICER, THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S SUPPRESSION MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

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 AMOUNT OF RESTITUTION IS PART OF THE SENTENCE AND MUST BE PRONOUNCED AT... ALTHOUGH TRADER JOE’S APPARENTLY DID NOT OWN THE PARKING LOT WHERE PLAINTIFF...