You are here: / / THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DELEGATED THE COURT’S AUTHORITY TO DECIDE...
,

THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DELEGATED THE COURT’S AUTHORITY TO DECIDE VISITATION ISSUES TO A MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONAL; THE PROPER PROCEDURE FOR MODIFYING VISITATION ONCE FATHER HAS GAINED INSIGHT INTO THE CHILD’S NEEDS WAS EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Family Court, determined the judge should not have delegated the court’s authority to decide visitation issues to a mental health professional:

… [T]he court improperly delegated to a mental health professional its authority to determine issues involving the child’s best interests — namely, when visits could resume and whether they should be supervised … . Accordingly, we modify to delete that provision of the order only. Upon an application to resume the father’s visits with the child, the applicant shall have the burden to demonstrate changed circumstances and that the modification requested is in the child’s best interests … , at which time the court may consider evidence that includes, but is not limited to, the testimony of a mental health expert about whether the father has gained insight into the child’s medical and emotional needs and the impact of his behavior on the child. Matter of M.K. v H. M., 2022 NY Slip Op 05663, First Dept 10-11-22

Practice Point: Family Court cannot delegate its authority to decide visitation issues to a mental health professional. The proper procedure for allowing father’s visitation to resume was explained, i.e., an application to resume visitation demonstrating a change in circumstances followed by an evidentiary hearing, including the testimony of a mental health expert.

 

You might also like
THE CONTINUING WRONG DOCTRINE APPLIES TO THIS COMPLEX BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION SUCH THAT EACH BREACH WAS AN ACTIONABLE EVENT; THEREFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DID NOT START RUNNING FOR ALL SUBSEQUENT BREACHES WHEN THE FIRST BREACH OCCURRED (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS NOT SHOWN TO BE NEGLIGENT OR TO HAVE EXERCISED SUPERVISION AND CONTROL OVER THE INJURY-PRODUCING WORK; SCHEDULING AND COORDINATING WORK DOES NOT CONSTITUTE SUPERVISON AND CONTROL; THE COMMON-LAW INDEMNIFICATION AND CONTRIBUTION CLAIMS SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
NEW YORK LAW APPLIES TO DISCOVERY IN THIS SUIT BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AGAINST EXXON ALLEGING FRAUD IN CONNECTION WITH EXXON’S KNOWLEDGE OF THE CAUSES AND EFFECTS OF GLOBAL WARMING, NO ACCOUNTANT PRIVILEGE IN NEW YORK.
PLAINTIFFS ALLEGED THE RESIDENTIAL-MORTGAGE-BACKED-SECURITIES ISSUED BY THE DEFENDANT TRUSTEES WERE WORTHLESS BECAUSE OF DEFENDANTS’ BREACHES OF CONTRACTUAL, FIDUCIARY AND STATUTORY DUTIES; MOST (BUT NOT ALL) OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS WERE DENIED BASED UPON CONTRACT-INTERPRETATION PRINCIPLES (FIRST DEPT).
FAILURE TO ATTEND INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS SET UP BY NO-FAULT CARRIER IS AN ABSOLUTE DEFENSE TO COVERAGE (FIRST DEPT).
WHERE (1) THE DISPUTE IS ABOUT WHETHER THE TENANT IS OBLIGATED TO REMOVE PROPERTY FROM THE PREMISES, (2) THE TENANT TIMELY SURRENDERS THE PREMISES, AND (3), THE LEASE IS SILENT ABOUT THE PAYMENT OF RENT AFTER THE TERM OF THE LEASE, USE AND OCCUPANCY DAMAGES ARE NOT AVAILABLE TO THE LANDLORD (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S INNOCENT TEMPORARY POSSESSION OF A WEAPON WAS THE RESULT OF HIS DISARMING A MAN WHO WAS ASSAULTING THE MAN’S WIFE; THE POSSESSION-OF-A-WEAPON CONVICTION REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS IN THE ELEVATOR SHAFT WHEN THE ELEVATOR, OPERATING NORMALLY, DESCENDED AND CRUSHED HIM; THE ELEVATOR WAS NOT A “FALLING OBJECT” WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240(1); COMPLAINT DISMISSED (FIRST 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 PEOPLE ARE NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE THEIR WITNESSES READY FOR TRIAL IN ORDER... THE PHRASE “CONSUMMATION OF THE ANTICIPATED MARRIAGE” IN THE PRENUPTIAL...