You are here: / / FATHER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE CHILD WAS CONSTRUCTIVELY EMANCIPATED; THEREFORE...
,

FATHER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE CHILD WAS CONSTRUCTIVELY EMANCIPATED; THEREFORE FATHER’S SUPPORT OBLIGATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN TERMINATED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined father did not meet his burden of proof in his attempt to demonstrate the constructive emancipation of the child such that his support obligation should be terminated:

“It is fundamental public policy in New York that parents are responsible for their children’s support until age 21” … . “However, under the doctrine of constructive emancipation, a child of employable age who actively abandons the noncustodial parent by refusing all contact and [parental access] may forfeit any entitlement to support. A child’s mere reluctance to see a parent is not abandonment” … . “[W]here it is the parent who causes a breakdown in communication with his or her child, or has made no serious effort to contact the child and exercise his or her parental access rights, the child will not be deemed to have abandoned the parent” … . “The burden of proof as to emancipation is on the party asserting it” … .

Here, contrary to the father’s contention, the evidence adduced at the hearing failed to demonstrate that he made serious efforts to maintain a relationship with the child during the relevant time period, or that the child actively abandoned her relationship with him … . Matter of Rosenkrantz v Rosenkrantz, 2023 NY Slip Op 05609, Second Dept 11-8-23

Practice Point: The proof requirements for constructive emancipation of a child were not met; criteria explained.

 

You might also like
General Contractor’s Liability for Ice and Snow at Work Site/Criteria for Indemnification of General Contractor
UNION’S CLAIM MEDICAL TREATMENT FOR LINE OF DUTY INJURIES WAS BEING UNDULY DELAYED OR DENIED WAS ARBITRABLE, WHETHER THE UNDERLYING GRIEVANCE WAS TIMELY BROUGHT MUST BE DETERMINED BY THE ARBITRATOR, NOT THE COURT (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE WET LOADING DOCK WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL; GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW 5-322.1 (1) APPLIES ONLY TO NEGLIGENT MAINTENANCE ASSOCIATED WITH THE INTEGRITY OF A BUILDING, NOT TO CLEANING SERVICES (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS STARTED RUNNING WHEN THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS FIRST BROUGHT, THE SUBSEQUENT LOAN MODIFICATION AGREEMENT, ENTERED WHILE THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS STILL PENDING, STARTED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS RUNNING ANEW (SECOND DEPT).
THE ONE YEAR TIME-LIMIT IN CPLR 3404 FOR A MOTION TO RESTORE AN ACTION TO THE CALENDAR DID NOT APPLY TO THIS CASE WHERE THE ACTION WAS ADMINISTRATIVELY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT). ​
NO CAUSAL CONNECTION BETWEEN FATHER’S MENTAL ILLNESS AND ACTUAL OR POTENTIAL HARM TO THE CHILD, NEGLECT FINDING VACATED (SECOND DEPT).
UNLICENSED CONTRACTOR CAN NOT RECOVER UNDER HOME IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT OR IN QUANTUM MERUIT.
Because the “Identity” of the Perpetrator Was Not an Issue, Allowing Evidence of Prior Crimes to Prove Identity Was Reversible Error.

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

MOTHER’S PETITION FOR SOLE CUSTODY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED UPON FATHER’S... THE “CONSENT TO SEARCH” PROBATION CONDITION WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY...