You are here: / / EVIDENCE MOTHER HAD BEEN ARRESTED FOR A DRUG OFFENSE WAS ENOUGH TO WARRANT...

EVIDENCE MOTHER HAD BEEN ARRESTED FOR A DRUG OFFENSE WAS ENOUGH TO WARRANT A HEARING ON FATHER’S PETITION FOR A CUSTODY MODIFICATION 4TH DEPT.

The Fourth Department determined father’s petition to modify custody should not have been denied without a hearing. The evidence that mother had been arrested for a drug offense, in addition to allegations of corporal punishment by mother’s boyfriend, were enough to warrant a hearing:

We  … agree with the father that he made a sufficient evidentiary showing of a change in circumstances to require a hearing with respect to certain remaining allegations in the amended petition. It was undisputed that the mother was facing prosecution for criminal possession of a controlled substance in Georgia. Although the mother submitted a negative drug test in support of her motion, the drug test was performed on a hair follicle sample that she submitted well after her arrest, and the assertions by the mother’s attorney regarding how far back such a test could detect drug use raises an issue to be resolved at an evidentiary hearing, not on a motion to dismiss. Considering the mother’s history of drug and alcohol addiction, as acknowledged by the parties in the parenting agreement, we conclude that the allegation that the mother was arrested and being prosecuted for criminal possession of a controlled substance is sufficient to warrant a hearing … , inasmuch as such conduct, including the mother’s possible unlawful use of a controlled substance, “is plainly relevant to her fitness as a parent” … . Matter of Farner v Farner, 2017 NY Slip Op 05545, 4th Dept 7-7-17

FAMILY LAW (CUSTODY, EVIDENCE MOTHER HAD BEEN ARRESTED FOR A DRUG OFFENSE WAS ENOUGH TO WARRANT A HEARING ON FATHER’S PETITION FOR A CUSTODY MODIFICATION 4TH DEPT)/CUSTODY (FAMILY LAW, EVIDENCE MOTHER HAD BEEN ARRESTED FOR A DRUG OFFENSE WAS ENOUGH TO WARRANT A HEARING ON FATHER’S PETITION FOR A CUSTODY MODIFICATION 4TH DEPT)

You might also like
Statement Elicited by Unnecessary Force Properly Suppressed
CITIZEN INFORMANT WHO WALKED INTO THE POLICE STATION PROVIDED SUFFICIENT INFORMATION TO JUSTIFY APPROACHING A VAN IN WHICH DEFENDANT WAS SLEEPING, LEADING TO DEFENDANT’S ARREST; A TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT ARGUED THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE FACE-TO-FACE INTERVIEW WITH THE INFORMANT DID NOT PROVIDE THE POLICE WITH REASONABLE SUSPICION (FOURTH DEPT).
THE COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR “DECEIT AND COLLUSION” PURSUANT TO JUDICIARY LAW 487 WHICH IS NOT THE SAME AS COMMON LAW FRAUD; THERE IS NO NEED TO SHOW A PARTY WAS MISLED BY THE ATTORNEY’S INTENTIONAL FALSE STATEMENTS (FOURTH DEPT).
Underwater Land Is Appurtenant to Adjacent Upland
NOTE OF ISSUE AND CERTIFICATE OF READINESS CONTAINING INCORRECT INFORMATION (I.E., DISCOVERY WAS COMPLETE) SHOULD HAVE BEEN VACATED; STIPULATION OF CONFIDENTIALITY WAS SUFFICIENT TO PROTECT TRADE SECRETS (FOURTH DEPT).
MOTHER’S ATTORNEY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT NOTICE TO MOTHER WHO DID NOT ATTEND THE TERMINATION-OF-PARENTAL-RIGHTS HEARING; THE DEFAULT ORDER TERMINATING MOTHER’S PARENTAL RIGHTS WAS THEREFORE IMPROPER AND APPEAL IS NOT PRECLUDED (FOURTH DEPT).
THE DETECTIVE DID NOT READ THE MIRANDA RIGHTS TO DEFENDANT AND IT IS CLEAR FROM THE VIDEOTAPE THAT DEFENDANT COULD NOT HAVE READ THE WRITTEN EXPLANATION OF THOSE RIGHTS BEFORE HE WAIVED THEM; THE PEOPLE, THEREFORE, DID NOT PROVE DEFENDANT KNOWINGLY, INTELLIGENTLY AND VOLUNTARILY WAIVED THE MIRANDA RIGHTS; THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS DEFENDANT’S STATEMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT). ​
THE WARRANT AUTHORIZING THE SEARCH OF THE CONTENTS OF DEFENDANT’S CELL PHONE DID NOT RESTRICT THE SEARCH TO EVIDENCE OF ANY PARTICULAR CRIME AND DID NOT INCORPORATE THE POLICE INVESTIGATOR’S AFFIDAVIT WHICH PURPORTEDLY LAID OUT THE BASIS FOR FINDING PROBABLE CAUSE; THE WARRANT DID NOT MEET THE “PARTICULARITY REQUIREMENT” (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

DEC CONTRACTORS HAD THE RIGHT TO ENTER PROPERTY TO TEST FOR GASOLINE CONTAMINATION... DATE OF LOSS MEANS THE DATE OF THE DENIAL OF THE CLAIM, NOT THE DATE OF THE...