You are here: / / FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE COMPLETED THE HEARING, AWARD OF PRIMARY PHYSICAL...

FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE COMPLETED THE HEARING, AWARD OF PRIMARY PHYSICAL CUSTODY OF THE CHILDREN TO THE MATERNAL GRANDMOTHER REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court, determined primary physical custody of the children should not have been awarded to the maternal grandmother because the proceedings were flawed:

“[A]s between a parent and a nonparent, the parent has a superior right to custody that cannot be denied unless the nonparent establishes that the parent has relinquished that right because of surrender, abandonment, persisting neglect, unfitness or other like extraordinary circumstances” … . “The nonparent has the burden of establishing that extraordinary circumstances exist even where, as here, the prior order granting custody of the child to [the] nonparent[] was made upon consent of the parties' ” … .

Here, the court erred in granting the grandmother's petition prior to the completion of the hearing. The mother's testimony was not complete, the grandmother had not yet rested, and the mother had not been afforded the opportunity to call witnesses or present other evidence on her own behalf. In addition, there were controverted issues inasmuch as there is no evidence in the record of the mother's mental health other than her erratic in-court conduct, which she attributed to the trauma of being separated from her children, and there is no evidence whatsoever that the mother was abusing drugs or alcohol. Indeed, she denied abusing alcohol. We conclude that the court should have completed the hearing. Matter of Driscoll v Mack, 2018 NY Slip Op 06640, Fourth Dept 10-5-18

FAMILY LAW (FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE COMPLETED THE HEARING, AWARD OF PRIMARY PHYSICAL CUSTODY OF THE CHILDREN TO THE MATERNAL GRANDMOTHER REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT))/CUSTODY (FAMILY LAW, FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE COMPLETED THE HEARING, AWARD OF PRIMARY PHYSICAL CUSTODY OF THE CHILDREN TO THE MATERNAL GRANDMOTHER REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT))

You might also like
DESPITE THE PROVISION IN THE SEPARATION AGREEMENT REQUIRING THAT ANY MODIFICATION OF SUPPORT APPLY NEW JERSEY LAW, BECAUSE ALL PARTIES RESIDED IN NEW YORK WHEN THE MODIFICATION APPLICATION WAS MADE, NEW YORK LAW CONTROLS (FOURTH DEPT).
A LOCAL ONLINE NEWS OUTLET SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED FROM A FAMILY COURT HEARING REGARDING WHETHER A DEPUTY COUNTY ATTORNEY SHOULD BE DISQUALIFIED FROM A NEGLECT PROCEEDING ON CONFLICT OF INTEREST GROUNDS; THE OUTLET IS ENTITLED TO A TRANSCRIPT OF THE HEARING (FOURTH DEPT). ​
ARBITRATION AWARD WAS INDEFINITE AND NONFINAL (FOURTH DEPT).
GRAND LARCENY CONVICTION REDUCED TO PETIT LARCENY, PROOF OF VALUE OF STOLEN PROPERTY INSUFFICIENT.
HUMAN RIGHTS LAW CLAIMS DID NOT ALLEGE DISCRIMINATION; INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS DOES NOT APPLY TO TERMINATION OF AT WILL EMPLOYMENT; WORKERS’ COMPENSATION IS THE EXCLUSIVE REMEDY FOR NEGLIGENCE ACTIONS AGAINST AN EMPLOYER; PUNITIVE DAMAGES NOT AVAILABLE FOR THE EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION OR BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSES OF ACTION (FOURTH DEPT).
THE DEFENDANT’S STATEMENTS MADE TO A CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES CASEWORKER SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; THE CASEWORKER, UNDER THE FACTS, ACTED AS AN AGENT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT DURING THE INTERVIEW (FOURTH DEPT).
IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, COLLAPSE OF PAVEMENT NEAR A STORM DRAIN WAS CAUSED BY WATER FLOWING INTO THE DRAIN OVER TIME AND WAS NOT THE IMMEDIATE RESULT OF ACTION TAKEN BY THE VILLAGE, THE CONDITION WAS NOT ACTIONABLE (FOURTH DEPT).
SEIZURE OF COCAINE WAS NOT SUFFICIENTLY ATTENUATED FROM ILLEGAL DETENTION, SUPPRESSION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; RULING THAT DETENTION WAS ILLEGAL WAS NOT ADVERSE TO THE DEFENDANT AND THEREFORE COULD NOT BE RECONSIDERED ON APPEAL.

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

OWNER OF PROPERTY WHERE THE EMPLOYEE SLIPPED AND FELL WAS NOT AN ADDITIONAL... COURT IMPROPERLY INCLUDED A PROVISION IN THE ORDER DENYING MOTHER’S PETITION...