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
LABOR LAW 240(1) DOES NOT APPLY TO SLIPPING ON A STAIRCASE STEP, THE PERMANENT STAIRCASE IS NOT A SAFETY DEVICE; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND THE PLEADINGS TO ADD AN INDUSTRIAL CODE VIOLATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Registered Voter Could Not Intervene In Suit to Determine Constitutionality of Local Term-Limit Law
MOTHER’S MOTION TO RELOCATE WITH THE CHILDREN SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
THE MEDICAL CENTER WAS ENTITLED TO THE NO-FAULT INSURANCE BENEFITS ASSIGNED TO IT BY THE PEDESTRIAN INJURED BY PLAINTIFF’S TAXI; THE FACT THAT THE PEDESTRIAN HAD SETTLED HIS ACTION AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF TAXI COMPANY DID NOT HAVE ANY BEARING ON THE PLAINTIFF’S OBLIGATION TO PAY THE NO-FAULT BENEFITS TO THE MEDICAL CENTER (SECOND DEPT).
CONSTRUCTION MANAGER DID NOT EXERCISE SUFFICIENT CONTROL TO BE LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) (SECOND DEPT).
PROOF AT DARDEN HEARING DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT THE PURPORTED CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANT EXISTED AND PROVIDED SUFFICIENT INFORMATION TO SUPPORT THE ISSUANCE OF A SEARCH WARRANT (SECOND DEPT).
SORA Court Has Discretion to Deny Downward Departure Even When Mitigating Factor Demonstrated by Preponderance of Evidence
10-Year Period for Predicate Felony Tolled by Incarceration​

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...