You are here: / / THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DELEGATED THE COURT’S AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE...
,

THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DELEGATED THE COURT’S AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE MOTHER’S PARENTAL ACCESS; THE JUDGE LEFT IT TO MOTHER AND HER CHILD TO DETERMINE MOTHER’S PARENTAL ACCESS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the judge should not not have left it to mother and her child to determine when mother will have parental access. The child lives with stepmother who is married to father. Father, who is incarcerated, did not want mother to have parental access:

“A court may not delegate its authority to determine parental access to either a parent or a child” … . “While a child’s views are to be considered in determining custody or parental access, they are not determinative” … . Moreover, “[a]n access provision which is conditioned on the desires of [a] child[ ] tends to defeat the right of parental access” … .

Here, the order appealed from directed that the mother was only entitled to parental access with the child as often as she and the child agree. That provision effectively conditions the mother’s parental access on the child’s wishes and leaves the determination as to whether there should be any parental access at all to the child. Moreover, the Family Court’s directive as to parental access creates the potential for influence upon the child, since the stepmother, with whom he lives, is married to the father, who is opposed to the mother having any parental access with the child. Thus, the court’s directive as to parental access must be set aside … . Matter of Clezidor v Lexune, 2021 NY Slip Op 01409, Second Dept 3-10-21

 

You might also like
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PHYSICAL PARTITION OR SALE IS THE APPROPRIATE REMEDY RE: A FOUR-FAMILY BROWNSTONE.
THE STOP OF DEFENDANT’S CAR WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY REASONABLE SUSPICION; THE REPORT THAT A SUSPICIOUS CAR WAS FOLLOWING SOMEONE DID NOT DESCRIBE THE CAR AND DEFENDANT WAS NOT FOLLOWING ANYONE WHEN STOPPED; THE PROOF AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT WAS TRESPASSING BY DRIVING ON THE PRIVATE ROAD, WHICH WAS THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE STOP RELIED UPON BY SUPREME COURT (SECOND DEPT).
Injury from Falling Piece of Concrete-Pour-Form Raised Question of Fact About Liability Under Labor Law 240 (1)
PLAINTIFF NURSE WAS ASSAULTED BY A PATIENT IN DEFENDANT’S HOSPITAL; SHE WAS ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY OF ANY NON-PRIVILEGED INFORMATION ABOUT THE PATIENT’S AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR IN HIS MEDICAL RECORDS (SECOND DEPT).
AFTER RESPONDENT-STUDENT THREATENED TO “SHOOT… UP THE SCHOOL,” PETITIONER-POLICE-DEPARTMENT FILED A PETITION FOR AN EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER PURSUANT TO CPLR ARTICLE 63-A WHICH SUPREME COURT DENIED ON THE GROUND THE STATUTE VIOLATES THE SECOND AMENDMENT; THE APPELLATE DIVISION REVERSED FINDING THE STATUTE CONSTITUTIONAL (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT GOULD DEMONSTRATED THE OTHER DRIVER, DEFENDANT PAPPAS, FAILED TO YIELD THE RIGHT-OF-WAY, DEFENDANT GOULD DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW VIOLATION WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT, THEREFORE DEFENDANT GOULD WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
THERE WERE DISPUTED FACTS CONCERNING WHETHER DEFENDANT BREACHED THE COOPERATION AGREEMENT; THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE HELD A HEARING TO RESOLVE THE DISPUTED FACTS; DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION BY GUILTY PLEA REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
Criteria for Prohbition and Mandamus Actions Explained

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

PLAINTIFF WAS KNOCKED DOWN WHEN MALL SHOPPERS PANICKED AND FLED BECAUSE A FALLING... THE PETITION SEEKING EMAILS AND RECIPIENT LISTS IN ELECTRONIC FORM FROM THE...