You are here: / / FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED INCARCERATED FATHER’S PRO SE...

FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED INCARCERATED FATHER’S PRO SE PETITION SEEKING VISITATION BASED UPON THE EXISTENCE OF TWO ORDERS OF PROTECTION, THE FAMILY COURT ORDER OF PROTECTION, BY LAW, EXPIRED AFTER ONE YEAR, NOT WITHSTANDING A 2022 EXPIRATION DATE IN THE ORDER, AND THE ORDER OF PROTECTION IN THE CRIMINAL MATTER DID NOT PERTAIN TO THE CHILDREN (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined the incarcerated father’s petition seeking visitation with his children should not have been dismissed based upon two orders of protection. Although the Family Court order of protection, on its face, was to expire in 2022, it could not, under the law, exceed one year. The Family Court order of protection therefore expired in 2016. As for the order of protection issued in a criminal proceeding, it did not specifically pertain to the children and Family Court does not have the authority to change it:

Family Court, among other things, issued an order of protection that prohibited the father from having contact with the children … and such order expires on January 22, 2022. This expiration date, however, was not permissible. In this regard, because of the biological relationship between the father and the children, the duration of this order of protection could not exceed one year from the disposition of the matter, subject to any further extensions … . … We therefore modify the order of protection to reflect an expiration date of March 2, 2016. …

The order of protection issued in connection with petitioner’s criminal matter is likewise inapplicable. We note that Family Court generally does not have the authority to countermand the dictates of a criminal court order of protection … . That said, the order of protection issued against the father in his criminal matter did not specifically pertain to the subject children. Matter of Pedro A. v Gloria A., 2019 NY Slip Op 00010, Third Dept 1-3-19

 

You might also like
Invocation of Fifth Amendment Privilege Against Self-Incrimination by Both Attesting Witnesses Did Not Require Dismissal of Petition to Admit Will to Probate
SKIN CARE SPECIALIST WORKING FOR A SKIN CARE COMPANY WITH A DISPLAY IN A BLOOMINGDALE’S STORE WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE SKIN CARE COMPANY AND WAS ENTITLED TO BENEFITS, LATE NOTICE EXCUSED, CLAIMANT FELL ON THE WAY TO THE RESTROOM (THIRD DEPT).
No Evidence Defendant Agreed to Adjournment—Indictment Dismissed on Speedy Trial Grounds
Questions of Fact Whether Handrail Which Did Not Extend to the Top of the Stairs Constituted a Dangerous Condition Which Proximately Caused Plaintiff’s Fall
ANNOUNCING A NEW RULE GOVERNING THE DISCLOSURE OF PROSPECTIVE EXPERT WITNESS’S QUALIFICATIONS IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTIONS, THE THIRD DEPT REQUIRES COMPLETE DISCLOSURE OF THE QUALIFICATIONS, EVEN IF SUCH DISCLOSURE FACILITATES THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE WITNESS (THIRD DEPT).
AFTER TRIGGERING A SECURITY ALARM AT A SPORTING GOODS STORE, DEFENDANT WAS DETAINED IN THE STORE FOR HALF AN HOUR IN THE PRESENCE OF POLICE OFFICERS WHOSE QUESTIONS WERE NOT CONFINED TO THE PETIT LARCENY INVESTIGATION RE: AMMUNITION, BUT RATHER RELATED TO DEFENDANT’S POSSESSION OF FIREARMS; DEFENDANT’S UNWARNED STATEMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; CONVICTION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).
DISCOVERY OF THE COMPLETE DATABASE SHOWING THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE TYPE OF CLOTHES WHICH CAUGHT FIRE WAS APPROPRIATE, MOTION TO AMEND ANSWER PRECLUDED BY DISINGENUOUS BEHAVIOR WHICH PREJUDICED CODEFENDANTS (THIRD DEPT).
New Trial Ordered: Juror Found “Grossly Unqualified” by the Trial Judge Should Have Been Dismissed/One Juror Was Absent from the Deliberations for About An Hour

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

OIL AND GAS INVESTMENT SCHEME PROPERLY FOUND TO BE AN ABUSIVE TAX AVOIDANCE... GENERAL BUSINESS LAW 349 CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION...