You are here: / / WHETHER MOTHER MOVED MORE THAN 40 MILES WAS AN ISSUE IN THIS MODIFICATION...
, ,

WHETHER MOTHER MOVED MORE THAN 40 MILES WAS AN ISSUE IN THIS MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY ACTION; FAMILY COURT TOOK JUDICIAL NOTICE THAT THE MOVE WAS 39 MILES; THE DISSENT ARGUED FAMILY COURT DID NOT DISCLOSE THE BASIS OF THE JUDICIAL NOTICE WHICH PRECLUDED A CHALLENGE TO THE FINDING (THIRD DEPT).

he Third Department determined Family Court properly found that mother had not moved beyond the 40-mile limit imposed by the settlement agreement. The Family Court judge took judicial notice of the distance involved in the move which was determined to be 39 miles. The dissent argued Family Court erred in not specifying the basis for the judicial notice, thereby making it impossible to challenge:

From the dissent:

Although it is well settled that “‘a court may take judicial notice of facts which are capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to easily accessible sources of undisputable accuracy'” … , judicial notice of a fact is improper when it is “from a hearsay source or from unidentifiable or nonindisputable sources outside the record or at a time subsequent to the close of testimony” … . Fundamental fairness thus dictates that a court, before it takes judicial notice of a fact, provide the parties with the basis for its notice and “afford the parties the opportunity to be heard as to the propriety of taking judicial notice in the particular instance” … . Otherwise, the determination of whether such fact is or is not “of common knowledge or determinable by resort to sources of indisputable accuracy” cannot be properly tested or reviewed … .

… .Family Court never disclosed the basis for its 39-mile calculation, and it announced that it was taking judicial notice of that “fact” after testimony had concluded and only in the context of its written decision. As such, the parties never had an opportunity to be heard on this issue or dispute the basis for such judicially noticed finding. Nor does the record reflect that Family Court had a factual basis for its conclusion that the relocation provision of the agreement — which the court itself recognized as ambiguous — required that the 40-mile radius be measured between the outermost borders of Deposit and Clarks Summit, rather than from the parties’ respective residences or some other location, particularly since the language of the agreement requires the mother’s residence for the children, and not the boundary line of Clarks Summit, to be within a 40-mile radius from an undetermined location in Deposit. Indeed, the testimony of both parties contradicts the court’s interpretation … . Matter of Lonny C v Elizabeth C., 2020 NY Slip Op 04620, Third Dept 8-20-20

 

You might also like
THE PROCESS SERVER DID NOT TIMELY FILE PROOF OF SERVICE; THEREFORE SERVICE ON DEFENDANT WAS NEVER COMPLETE AND THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT IS A NULLITY; SUPREME COURT CAN CURE THE NONJURISDICTIONAL DEFECT BY ORDERING DEFENDANT TO BE SERVED AND THE DEFENDANT MAY THEN INTERPOSE AN ANSWER (THIRD DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT AT SENTENCING THAT HE DIDN’T MEAN TO HURT THE VICTIM, RAISING THE POSSIBILITY OF THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE, REQUIRED FURTHER INQUIRY BY THE COURT, PLEA VACATED DESPITE FAILURE TO MAKE POSTALLOCUTION MOTION (THIRD DEPT).
PETITIONER POLICE OFFICER FELL TWICE AT NIGHT WHILE INVESTIGATING SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITY; HE FELL IN A THREE-FOOT DEEP HOLE WHEN CHECKING OUT A HOUSE AND HE FELL DOWN SOME STAIRS CHECKING OUT A PARKING LOT; NEITHER FALL WAS A COMPENSABLE “ACCIDENT” (THIRD DEPT).
Warrantless Entry Justified by Exigent Circumstances
THE SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION (SCI) DID NOT AFFIRMATIVELY PLEAD THE EXCEPTION IN THE CRIMINAL MISCHIEF STATUTE; THEREFORE THE CRIMINAL MISCHIEF COUNT WAS JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE (THIRD DEPT).
Contacts Insufficient for Long-Arm Jurisdiction
COUNTY COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT DECLARED A MISTRIAL AFTER ONLY A SHORT PERIOD OF DELIBERATIONS, JEOPARDY ATTACHED AND DEFENDANT CAN NOT BE REPROSECUTED (THIRD DEPT).
BOTH PARENTS OPPOSED VISITATION WITH THE GRANDPARENTS AND THERE WAS EVIDENCE VISITATION WITH THE GRANDPARENTS HAD NEGATIVE EFFECTS ON ONE OF THE CHILDREN; IT WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED THAT VISITATION WITH THE GRANDPARENTS WAS IN THE CHILDREN’S BEST INTERESTS; MATTER REMITTED FOR A NEW HEARING BEFORE A DIFFERENT JUDGE (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THE PRIOR BAD ACT EVIDENCE EXCEEDED THAT ALLOWED BY THE MOLINEUX RULING, DEFENDANT’S... PEOPLE’S REQUEST TO WITHHOLD DISCOVERY UNTIL FIFTEEN DAYS BEFORE A HEARING...