You are here: / / CONDITIONS OF FATHER’S VISITATION CANNOT BE DETERMINED BY A THER...

CONDITIONS OF FATHER’S VISITATION CANNOT BE DETERMINED BY A THERAPIST.

The Second Department determined Family Court improperly left the conditions for father’s visitation with his child up to a therapist:

… [I]t is for the Family Court—not the child’s therapist—to exercise its own discretion to determine how, when, and under what terms and conditions the father’s visitation with the subject child … is to resume … . Matter of Rogan v Guida, 2016 NY Slip Op 06716, 2nd Dept 10-12-16

FAMILY LAW (CONDITIONS OF FATHER’S VISITATION CANNOT BE DETERMINED BY A THERAPIST)/VISITATION (FAMILY LAW, CONDITIONS OF FATHER’S VISITATION CANNOT BE DETERMINED BY A THERAPIST)

You might also like
TAX FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING IS A NULLITY, THE PROPERTY OWNERS HAD DIED AND NO REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ESTATES HAD BEEN APPOINTED OR NAMED PURSUANT TO THE SURROGATE’S COURT PROCEDURE ACT OR THE CPLR (SECOND DEPT).
Plaintiff Bicyclist Entitled to Summary Judgment—Defendant Driver Made a Left Turn into a Parking Lot When Plaintiff Was Riding in Oncoming Lane
Conviction Reversed Because Court Failed to Inquire About the Reasons for Defendant’s Request for Substitution of Counsel After Trial Began
BANK’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO ENTER A DEFAULT JUDGMENT WAS SUPPORTED BY DOCUMENTS VERIFIED OR AFFIRMED BY PERSONS WITHOUT FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE, MOTION WAS PROPERLY DENIED BUT COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED SUA SPONTE (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT DID NOT STATE PRIVATE AND PUBLIC NUISANCE CAUSES OF ACTION BASED UPON SINKHOLES ON PLAINTIFFS’ LAND WHICH ALLEGEDLY RESULTED FROM THE FAILURE OF A BULKHEAD ON DEFENDANT’S PROPERTY (SECOND DEPT).
Failure to Advise Appellant of Right to Counsel In Contempt Proceedings Required Reversal
NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE PLAINTIFF-STUDENT’S INJURIES, ANOTHER STUDENT, WHO WAS BEING CHASED BY A DOG WHICH HAD BROKEN LOOSE, RAN INTO PLAINTIFF DURING LACROSSE PRACTICE (SECOND DEPT).
JURY CONFUSION AND THE INCONSISTENT VERDICT IN THIS LABOR LAW 241(6) ACTION REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL; EVEN A WORKER AUTHORIZED TO BE WITHIN THE RANGE OF AN EXCAVATOR BUCKET CAN CLAIM THE PROTECTION OF THE INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISION WHICH PROHIBITS WORK IN AN AREA WHERE A WORKER MAY BE STRUCK BY EXCAVATION EQUIPMENT (SECOND 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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING RE: WHETHER HIS CONVICTION SHOULD BE VACATED;... INSURER WAS NOTIFIED OF PLAINTIFFS’ LAWSUIT BY THE INJURED PLAINTIFFS...