You are here: / / THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DELEGATED ITS AUTHORITY TO SET A SCHEDULE FOR...
,

THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DELEGATED ITS AUTHORITY TO SET A SCHEDULE FOR MOTHER’S PARENTAL ACCESS TO THE PARTIES IN THIS CUSTODY ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Family Court, held the judge should not have left it up to mother and the non-family-member (Pierce) who brought the custody petition to determine mother’s parental access:

… [A[ “court may not delegate its authority to determine parental access to either a parent or a child” … . Here, the Family Court improperly delegated the determination of the mother’s parental access to the mother and Pierce. The record reflects that the relationship between Pierce and the mother has deteriorated and reveals troubling interactions between the parties, including one alleged instance where Pierce prevented the mother from visiting the child during a scheduled visitation. Accordingly, we remit the matter … to expeditiously establish both a supervisor for the mother’s parental access with the child as well as a specific schedule for the mother’s parental access in accordance with the best interests of the child that shall be observed by both the mother and Pierce … . Matter of Pierce v Joyner, 2025 NY Slip Op 04250, Second Dept 7-23-25

Practice Point: The court cannot delegate its authority to set up a parental-access schedule to the parties in a custody action.

 

You might also like
Purchaser of Real Property, Who Is Aware of a Pending Lawsuit Involving the Property When the Purchase Is Made, Is Bound By the Outcome of the Lawsuit
RETURN OF THE CHILDREN TO MOTHER AFTER A TEMPORARY REMOVAL WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY A SOUND AND SUBSTANTIAL BASIS (SECOND DEPT).
BEFORE SUING A TORTFEASOR’S INSURER, PLAINTIFF MUST OBTAIN A JUDGMENT AGAINST THE TORTFEASOR (SECOND DEPT).
CPLR 1021 DEFINES THE PROCEDURE FOR SUBSTITUTING A REPRESENTATIVE FOR A DECEASED PARTY; HERE THAT PROCEDURE WAS NOT FOLLOWED; THE JUDGE’S SUA SPONTE ORDER SUBSTITUTING THE EXECUTOR WAS A NULLITY (SECOND DEPT).
A JUDGE HAS DISCRETION TO DENY A MOTION FOR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT ON THE GROUND THE CAUSE OF ACTION HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN TO BE VIABLE; HERE THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT, WHICH ARE DEEMED ADMITTED, STATED A VIABLE CAUSE OF ACTION AND THE MOTION FOR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO MAKE A PERSONAL STATEMENT BEFORE RESENTENCING, RESENTENCE REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
No Liability to Third Party Stemming from Contract to Install a Sign
Family Court Should Not Have Denied Child’s Motion for the Issuance of an Order Making Specific Findings that Would Allow Her to Petition for Special Juvenile Immigrant Status

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

IN A SLIP AND FALL, PROOF OF GENERAL CLEANING PRACTICES DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE... PLAINTIFF TRIPPED OVER AN EMPTY MILK CRATE ON A CARPETED FLOOR; THE CONDITION...