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
Hospital Not Necessary Party in Malpractice Action Where Liability Vicarious
DEFENDANT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE PROVED THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY SLIPPED AND FELL WAS INSPECTED (AT MOST) AN HOUR AND TEN MINUTES BEFORE THE FALL; THAT PROOF WAS SUFFICIENT TO AWARD DEFENDANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
AN AGREEMENT SIGNED BY THE PLAINTIFF IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION REQUIRING THE DEPOSITION OF EXPERT WITNESSES 120 DAYS BEFORE TRIAL IS VOID AND UNENFORCEABLE AS AGAINST THE POLICY UNDERLYING THE EXPERT DISCLOSURE PROVISIONS OF THE CPLR (SECOND DEPT).
THE PERSON WHO ASSAULTED PLAINTIFF WAS THE OWNER OF THE LAW FIRM PLAINTIFF WORKED FOR; PLAINTIFF COULD RECOVER WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS FROM THE LAW FIRM AND DAMAGES FOR ASSAULT AND BATTERY FROM THE OWNER, WHO WAS A COEMPLOYEE (SECOND DEPT).
GENERAL CONTRACTOR DID NOT EXERCISE ANY SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER PLAINTIFF’S WORK AND THEREFORE WAS NOT LIABLE FOR AN INJURY ARISING FROM THE MANNER OF PLAINTIFF’S WORK FOR A SUBCONTRACTOR; LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
ABSENCE OF A TRANSLATOR’S AFFIDAVIT CONTRIBUTED TO DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON SECOND DEGREE AND CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A FIREARM ARE INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNTS (SECOND DEPT).
DAY CARE CENTER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION CASE PROPERLY DENIED (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

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