You are here: / / FATHER’S VISITATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUBJECT TO MOTHER’S...
, ,

FATHER’S VISITATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUBJECT TO MOTHER’S CONSENT; ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD SHOULD NOT HAVE REFERRED TO EVIDENCE TAKEN IN THE LINCOLN HEARING IN THE APPELLATE BRIEF; THE HEARING TRANSCRIPTS ARE SEALED AND CONFIDENTIAL (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, modifying Family Court, determined father’s visitation rights should not have been made subject to mother’s consent and the attorney for the child should not have referred to the Lincoln hearing in the appellate brief:

Although the order provides the father with the opportunity for frequent and regular unsupervised access, the provision conditioning expansion of visitation to include overnight visitation only upon the mother’s consent is an impermissible delegation of authority … . …

… [W]e note our displeasure that the attorney for the children made repeated references to the Lincoln hearing in the appellate brief that he submitted on their behalf … . Family Court’s promise of confidentiality should not be lightly breached, and these transcripts are sealed. We again emphasize that “[t]he right to confidentiality during a Lincoln hearing belongs to the child and is superior to the rights or preferences of the parents. Children whose parents are engaged in custody and visitation disputes must be protected from having to openly choose between parents or openly divulging intimate details of their respective parent/child relationships” … . We further note that the breach of the confidentiality of the Lincoln hearing — and of the trust of the children — was exacerbated by the fact that the attorney for the children made certain representations about the children’s testimony that were inconsistent with their statements during the hearing. Matter of Ellen TT. v Parvaz UU., 2019 NY Slip Op 09328, Third Dept 12-26-19

 

You might also like
Defendant’s “Agency” Defense to a Drug Sale Addressed Under a “Weight of the Evidence” Review (Defense Was Disproved Beyond a Reasonable Doubt)
PETITIONER-INMATE WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO BE PRESENT DURING HIS DISCIPLINARY HEARING; ALTHOUGH PETITIONER WAS ARGUMENTATIVE, REMOVAL FROM THE HEARING WAS NOT WARRANTED; DETERMINATION ANNULLED (THIRD DEPT).
PETITIONER POLICE OFFICER WAS AWARE OF THE DEFECT IN THE FLOOR WHICH CAUSED HIS CHAIR TO START TO TIP OVER BACKWARDS WHEN THE WHEELS CAUGHT IN THE DEFECT; THEREFORE THE INCIDENT WAS NOT UNEXPECTED AND PETITIONER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ACCIDENTAL DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).
Failure to Empanel the First Six Jurors Chosen by the Parties Justified Setting Aside the Verdict
Defendant Entitled to New Counsel After Defense Attorney Took a Position Adverse to Defendant’s Pro Se Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea
COMPLAINT INCLUDED ACTIONABLE DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS AGAINST THE INDIVIDUAL WHO MADE THE STATEMENTS IN A LETTER TO TOWN OFFICIALS, TOWN OFFICIALS ENTITLED TO ABSOLUTE OR QUALIFIED IMMUNITY.
The County Was Negligent Per Se Due to Its Violation of the Provision of the Vehicle and Traffic Law Requiring Loads in Open Trucks be Covered—Plaintiff Was Struck by Debris Which Came Off an Uncovered Load—The Governmental Immunity Conferred by the Executive Law During a Response to an Emergency (the Truck Was Carrying Debris from the Clean-Up After Hurricane Irene) Did Not Extend to this Situation (Purpose and Scope of the Government’s “Emergency” Immunity Under the Executive Law Explained)
THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY TO SAVE THE AMENDED PETITION CHALLENGING A USE VARIANCE; THE INTITIAL PETITION FAILED TO NAME A NECESSARY PARTY WHO WAS KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS AND WAS DISMISSED ON THAT GROUND; THE AMENDED PEITITION, WHICH NAMED THE NECESSARY PARTY, WAS DISMISSED AS TIME-BARRED; BECAUSE THE PETITIONERS HAD NO DOUBT ABOUT WHO THE NECESSARY PARTY WAS AND HAD NAMED HER IN A PRIOR PETITION, THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE COULD NOT BE INVOKED (THIRD 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 JURY WAS WRONGLY INSTRUCTED ON THE INFERENCE WHICH CAN BE DRAWN ABOUT THE... ALTHOUGH THE ALLEGED RETALIATORY ACTIONS BY THE EMPLOYER TOOK PLACE YEARS AFTER...