In affirming Supreme Court’s finding that the plaintiff in a divorce action met the durational residency requirements of Domestic Relations Law section 230, in spite of several career-related relocations, the Third Department wrote: Given the absence of any proof that plaintiff intended to abandon her existing New York domicile and adopt any of the temporary […]
The Third Department affirmed Family Court’s finding of neglect based upon the father’s failure to ensure that the child (born with a cleft palate) was receiving adequate nutrition and medical care. Here, the record establishes that the father attended many of the child’s pediatric appointments, as well as the evaluation conducted by the feeding and […]
The Second Department noted that Family Court should not have ordered a parent to undergo treatment as a condition of future visitation. Rather treatment should have been ordered as a component of supervised visitation: …”[A] court may not order that a parent undergo counseling or treatment as a condition of future visitation or reapplication for […]
The Second Department noted that an order made on consent is not appealable and affirmed Family Court’s determination that a stipulation entered into in open court was valid: Stipulations of settlement are favored by the courts and a stipulation made on the record in open court will not be set aside absent a showing that […]
In remitting the matter to Family Court, the Second Department determined Family Court should have examined the evidence to determine whether it had jurisdiction over a petition to modify visitation where the initial visitation determination was part of a divorce action in Supreme Court: The Family Court erred in declining to sign the order to […]
In affirming Family Court’s allowing a parent’s relocation, the Second Department explained the criteria: A parent seeking to relocate bears the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the proposed move would be in the child’s best interests …. In determining whether relocation is appropriate, the court must consider a number of […]
In determining Family Court committed reversible error by depriving father of his right to self-representation, the Second Department wrote: The father, as a respondent in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, had a right to be represented by counsel (see Family Ct Act § 262[a][iii];…). A party, however, may waive the right […]
In remitting the matter to Family Court for a hearing in a custody proceeding with controverted allegations, the Second Department noted that, although a hearing is not always required, there was not enough evidence before the court for an informed determination in this case: ” [A]s a general rule, it is error as a matter […]
In affirming Family Court’s finding that mother had permanently neglected her child and, because of her mental illness, would not be able to adequately care for the child in the future, the Second Department wrote: …[T]he petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence that it made diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship […]
The Second Department determined Family Court had properly revoked father’s suspended judgment for failure to comply with its terms and conditions: The Family Court may revoke a suspended judgment after a hearing if it finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the parent failed to comply with one or more of its conditions…. “When […]
Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy