You are here: / / SUPREME COURT IMPROPERLY AWARDED CUSTODY TO FATHER, RELIEF WHICH HAD NOT...

SUPREME COURT IMPROPERLY AWARDED CUSTODY TO FATHER, RELIEF WHICH HAD NOT BEEN REQUESTED BY FATHER, WITHOUT A BEST INTERESTS HEARING, AFTER MOTHER ASKED TO APPEAR AT A HEARING BY TELEPHONE.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the award of custody to father, which father had not requested, when mother asked to appear at a hearing by telephone was improper. The hearing was to determine father’s allegation mother had violated the visitation provisions of the consent order awarding custody to her. The child had appealed. The best interests of the child are paramount and don’t appear to have been considered by the court:

The paramount concern in any custody or visitation determination is the best interests of the child … . “In order to modify a consent order granting sole custody to a parent, there must be a showing of a change [in] circumstances such that modification is required to protect the best interests of the child'” … . “Custody determinations should generally be made only after a full and plenary hearing and inquiry. This general rule furthers the substantial interest, shared by the State, the [child], and the parents, in ensuring that custody proceedings generate a just and enduring result that, above all else, serves the best interests of the child” … . Reversal or modification of an existing custody order “should not be a weapon wielded as a means of punishing a recalcitrant” or contemptuous parent … . Moreover, where no party has moved for a change in custody, a court may not modify an existing custody order in a non-emergency situation absent notice to the parties, and without affording the custodial parent an opportunity to present evidence and to call and cross-examine witnesses … .

Here, the Supreme Court improperly modified the consent order by changing custody from the mother to the father without the father having sought that relief in the petition, and without any apparent consideration of the child’s best interests … . The court’s award of custody to the father under the circumstances of this case also was improper in light of the father’s statements during the proceedings that he did not have a steady place to live with the child and that he did not wish to make an application for custody. Accordingly, we reverse the order and remit the matter to the Supreme Court … , for further proceedings on the father’s violation petition. We caution the Supreme Court to be mindful that determining the best interest of a child is a weighty responsibility, and that it ordinarily should not make such a determination without conducting an evidentiary hearing. Matter of Noel v Melle, 2017 NY Slip Op 05226, 2nd Dept 6-28-17

 

You might also like
THE LANDOWNER ABUTTNG A SIDEWALK IN NYC HAS A NONDELEGABLE DUTY TO MAINTAIN THE SIDEWALK; HERE THE LANDOWNER FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE PRESENCE OF ICE AND SNOW ON THE SIDEWALK BECAUSE IT DID NOT AVER WHEN THE SIDEWALK WAS LAST INSPECTED OR CLEANED PRIOR TO THE SLIP AND FALL (SECOND DEPT).
IN A MED MAL ACTION, AN EXPERT’S AFFIRMATION WHICH IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD WILL BE DEEMED “CONCLUSORY” AND WILL NOT SUPPORT SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO CANCEL AND DISCHARGE THE MORTGAGE BASED ON THE EXPIRATION OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NO GROUNDS FOR IMPOSING AN EQUITABLE MORTGAGE IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF (SECOND DEPT).
PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST THE TOWN AMBULANCE IN THIS WRONGFUL DEATH, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE AND PUBLIC HEALTH LAW ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NO REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR THE DELAY AND NO TIMELY KNOWLEDGE ON THE PART OF THE MUNICIPALITY (SECOND DEPT).
The Proper Vehicle to Address Fraud Which Is Alleged to Have Tainted a Completed Proceeding Is a Motion to Vacate the Judgment, Not the Institution of a New Plenary Action
THE DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT DID NOT NULLIFY THE COUNTERCLAIMS (SECOND DEPT).
COURT HAD DISCRETION TO ACCEPT A BELATED ORDER OF REFERENCE SUBMITTED AFTER THE 60-DAY DEADLINE IN 22 NYCRR 202.48 IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, LAW OF THE CASE DOCTRINE DOES NOT APPLY TO A DISCRETIONARY ORDER (SECOND DEPT).
THE 2015 COURT OF APPEALS DECISION WHICH PROHIBITED INSTRUCTING A JURY THAT IT COULD FIND A DEFENDANT GUILTY OF BOTH DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER AND INTENTIONAL (TRANSFERRED INTENT) MURDER OF A SINGLE VICTIM SHOULD NOT BE APPLIED RETROACTIVELY (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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THE RECORD SUPPORTED A NEGLECT FINDING BASED UPON FATHER’S ABUSE OF MOTHER,... FATHER TOLD THE COURT HE HAD RETAINED COUNSEL BUT COUNSEL COULD NOT ATTEND THE...