You are here: / / THE CHILDREN WISHED TO REMAIN WITH MOTHER BUT CUSTODY WAS AWARDED TO FATHER;...
,

THE CHILDREN WISHED TO REMAIN WITH MOTHER BUT CUSTODY WAS AWARDED TO FATHER; THE ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD AGREED FATHER SHOULD HAVE CUSTODY; MOTHER REQUESTED A LINCOLN HEARING WHICH WAS DENIED; THE DISSENT ARGUED A LINCOLN HEARING SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined custody of the children was properly granted to father, against the children’s wishes.  The attorney for the child (AFC) informed the court of the children’s wishes but supported custody by the father. The mother unsuccessfully argued a Lincoln hearing should have been held. The dissent agreed that a Lincoln hearing was necessary:

The mother further contends that the court erred in declining to conduct a Lincoln hearing. Inasmuch as the AFC expressed the children’s wishes to the court … , the children were both of young age … , and there are indications in the record that they were being coached on what to say to the court … , we perceive no abuse of discretion in the court’s denial of the mother’s request for a Lincoln hearing … . * * *

From the dissent:

While the decision whether to conduct a Lincoln hearing is discretionary, it is ” often the preferable course’ ” to conduct one … . Indeed, a child’s preference, although not determinative, is an “important” factor that provides the court, while considering the potential for influence and the child’s age and maturity, “some indication of what is in the child’s best interests” … . In addition, the in camera testimony of a child may ” on the whole benefit the child by obtaining for the [court] significant pieces of information [it] needs to make the soundest possible decision’ ” … .

In this case, the children were 10 and 7 years old, respectively, at the time of the proceeding, ages at which a child’s “wishes [are] not necessarily entitled to the great weight’ we accord to the preferences of older adolescents . . . [but are], at minimum, entitled to consideration’ ” … . Most importantly, the Attorney for the Children (AFC) substituted his judgment for that of the children and advocated that custody be transferred from the mother to the father, despite the fact that the children had been in the mother’s custody since birth and the fact that the father admitted to having committed an act of domestic violence against the mother. While the AFC did inform the court of the children’s expressed wishes to live with the mother, in my view, the court should have conducted a Lincoln hearing to consider those wishes and the reasons for them. Matter of Muriel v Muriel, 2020 NY Slip Op 00776,  Fourth Dept 1-31-20

 

You might also like
THE JUDGE DID NOT MAKE THE REQUIRED INQUIRY TO ENSURE DEFENDANT’S WAIVER OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL FOR THE SORA HEARING WAS KNOWING, INTELLIGENT AND VOLUNTARY; THE NOTICE OF THE SORA HEARING PROVIDED TO DEFENDANT WAS INADEQUATE (FOURTH DEPT).
POSSESSION OF A FORGED INSTRUMENT CONVICTION REVERSED, NO FOUNDATION FOR TWO CATEGORIES OF HEARSAY EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT).
HERE THE BENEFICIARY OF THE WILL WAS IN A CONFIDENTIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE DECEDENT AND THE WILL WAS PREPARED BY AN ATTORNEY ASSOCIATED WITH THE BENEFICIARY; THE UNDUE INFLUENCE OBJECTIONS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED FOR APPEAL, THE FAILURE TO GIVE THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL-EVIDENCE JURY INSTRUCTION WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR (FOURTH DEPT).
VILLAGE CODE DID NOT EXPLICITLY IMPOSE TORT LIABILITY FOR SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALLS ON THE ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS, ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
DEFENDANT WAS NOT IN “CLOSE PROXIMITY” TO THE DRUGS WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE “ROOM” OR “DRUG FACTORY” PRESUMPTION; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT).
ORDER ENTERED ON CONSENT IS NOT APPEALABLE; ONLY REMEDY IS MOTION TO VACATE.
ALTHOUGH THE PRIVATE CITIZEN WAS ACTING AS AN AGENT FOR THE POLICE WHEN SHE RECORDED DEFENDANT’S ADMISSION TO MURDER, DEFENDANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO A 710.30 NOTICE BECAUSE THE STATEMENT WAS VOLUNTARILY MADE AND NOT SUBJECT TO SUPPRESSION, TWO -JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH 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

THERE SHOULD ONLY BE ONE SORA RISK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING BASED UPON THE SAME... FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE HELD A CUSTODY HEARING WITHOUT FATHER’S PARTICIPATION...