You are here: / / THE COURT’S PRIOR ORDER STATED FATHER’S COMPLIANCE FOR SIX...
, ,

THE COURT’S PRIOR ORDER STATED FATHER’S COMPLIANCE FOR SIX MONTHS WOULD CONSTITUTE A CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES AND FATHER DEMONSTRATED SUCH COMPLIANCE; IN ADDITION MOTHER’S RELOCATION TO ARIZONA WITHOUT PERMISSION CONSTITUTED A CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES; IN-PERSON VISITATION ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court, determined father demonstrated a change in circumstances warranting in-person visitation with the children. The prior order of the court stated that father’s compliance for six months would constitute a change in circumstances and father demonstrated such compliance. In addition, mother’s relocation to Arizona without permission also constituted an actionable change in circumstances:

The prior order provided “that sufficient compliance with [the] order for a period of six (6) months will constitute a change of circumstances for [f]ather to re[-]petition for additional visitation time and overnights.” The father testified that he had been exercising his visitation consistently until the mother moved to Arizona with the children, an assertion that went unchallenged during the hearing. We conclude that the father established a change in circumstances based on his compliance with the terms of the prior order. We also conclude that the mother’s relocation without permission constituted a change in circumstances because it resulted in a substantial interference with the father’s visitation rights … .

Based on the record before us, we further conclude that modification of the father’s visitation schedule to include in-person visitation would serve the children’s best interests … . Matter of Hudson v Carter, 2024 NY Slip Op 03615, Fourth Dept 7-3-24

Practice Point: If a court order indicates compliance for six months will constitute a change in circumstances warranting modification of custody, that condition should be honored by the court.

 

You might also like
THE TRIAL TESTIMONY RENDERED THE COUNT DUPLICITOUS, NEW TRIAL REQUIRED (FOURTH DEPT).
THE PEOPLE DID NOT EXERCISE DUE DILIGENCE BEFORE STATING IN THE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE (COC) THAT COMPLAINANT DID NOT HAVE A CRIMINAL RECORD AND ANNOUNCING READINESS FOR TRIAL; IF DEFENSE COUNSEL KNEW OF COMPLAINANT’S CRIMINAL RECORD, THE DEFENSE WAS STATUTORILY REQUIRED TO ALERT THE PEOPLE TO THE DEFECT IN THE COC; MATTER REMITTED FOR DETERMINATION OF THE SPEEDY-TRIAL MOTION; EXTENSIVE TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).
THE WORDING OF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL DID NOT RESTRICT THE APPEAL TO THE DENIAL OF PLAINTIFF’S CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, BUT RATHER INCLUDED THE GRANT OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANT; THE DISSENTER DISAGREED (FOURTH DEPT).
AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING THE ARRESTING OFFICER TESTIFIED HIS PARTNER TOLD HIM THERE WAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST AFTER HIS PARTNER SPOKE TO THE DRIVER; THE DEFENSE CHALLENGED THE INFORMATION IMPARTED BY THE DRIVER TO THE PARTNER UNDER THE FELLOW OFFICER RULE; BECAUSE NO EVIDENCE WAS PRESENTED TO DEMONSTRATE THE PARTNER HAD THE REQUISITE LEVEL OF SUSPICION, SUPPRESSION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
REFUSING TO TAKE A DWI BREATH TEST IS NOT AN OFFENSE (FOURTH DEPT).
BECAUSE THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED, THE APPELLATE COURT DID NOT ADDRESS DEFENDANT’S OBJECTION TO THE TRIAL JUDGE’S PROHIBITING DEFENDANT FROM COMMUNICATING WITH HIS ATTORNEY DURING OVERNIGHT RECESSES WHEN DEFENDANT WAS ON THE STAND (FOURTH DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S SUBMISSIONS RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE ORAL AGREEMENT THAT DEFENDANT WOULD BUY PLAINTIFF’S HOUSE FOR $40,000, OTHERWISE VOID UNDER THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS, WAS ENFORCEABLE BECAUSE IT WAS PARTIALLY PERFORMED (FOURTH DEPT).
THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE HELD A HEARING TO DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF RESTITUTION, MATTER REMITTED (FOURTH 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 WARRANT AUTHORIZING THE SEARCH OF THE CONTENTS OF DEFENDANT’S CELL... A MUNICIPALITY CANNOT BE SUED FOR NEGLIGENT HIRING, RETENTION, TRAINING AND...