You are here: / / FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE SET A SPECIFIC AND DEFINITIVE VISITATION SCHEDULE,...

FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE SET A SPECIFIC AND DEFINITIVE VISITATION SCHEDULE, MATTER REMITTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, modifying Family Court, determined Family Court should have set a specific and definitive visitation schedule:

Respondent mother appeals from an amended order that, inter alia, granted petitioner father’s petition to modify a prior custody order by awarding him primary physical custody of their daughter. We agree with the mother that Family Court erred in failing to set a specific and definitive visitation schedule … . We therefore modify the amended order by striking from the first ordering paragraph the words “and subject to periods of visitation with the Mother and the Father shall encourage [the child] to visit with her Mother,” and we remit the matter to Family Court to fashion a specific and definitive schedule for visitation between the mother and daughter. Matter of Montes v Johnson, 2018 NY Slip Op 04194, Fourth Dept 6-8-18

FAMILY LAW (VISITATION, FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE SET A SPECIFIC AND DEFINITIVE VISITATION SCHEDULE, MATTER REMITTED (FOURTH DEPT))/VISITATION (FAMILY LAW, FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE SET A SPECIFIC AND DEFINITIVE VISITATION SCHEDULE, MATTER REMITTED (FOURTH DEPT))

You might also like
THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT HAD CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF A RECURRING ICY CONDITION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (FOURTH DEPT).
Elements of Civil Antitrust Action Under the General Business Law (Donnelly Act) Explained; Corporate Officers Can Be Individually Liable
CONTRACT WHICH CALLED FOR THE PRICE FOR EXHIBITS AT TRADE SHOWS TO BE AMORTIZED OVER UP-COMING EVENTS WAS NOT AN AGREEMENT TO AGREE AND WAS SUFFICIENTLY DEFINITE, LIQUIDATED DAMAGES CLAUSE ENFORCEABLE (FOURTH DEPT).
THE STATE PROPERLY APPROVED THE CONSTRUCTION OF ELECTICITY-GENERATING WIND TURBINES IN WESTERN NEW YORK (FOURTH DEPT).
MALICIOUS PROSECUTION AND ABUSE OF PROCESS CAUSES OF ACTION NOT SUFFICIENTLY PLED.
DEFENDANT, AN OUT OF POSSESSION LESSEE, WAS NOT AN ‘OWNER’ WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240 (1) OR 241 (6) AND WAS THEREFORE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FOURTH DEPT).
Mode of Proceedings Error Re: Jury Note Required Reversal, Molineux Rulings Flawed
DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT WAS NOT ADMISSIBLE AS SPONTANEOUS, CASE HELD IN RESERVE TO ALLOW COUNTY COURT TO RULE ON OTHER ISSUES RAISED IN OPPOSITION TO THE SUPPRESSION MOTION.

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

DEFENDANT’S PRE-MIRANDA STATEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED, DEFENDANT... FOURTEEN YEAR OLD CHILD HAD THE STATUTORY RIGHT TO WAIVE HIS PRESENCE AT THE...