Family Law – New York Appellate Digest

NONRESPONDENT MOTHER REPORTED DOMESTIC ABUSE BY HER HUSBAND; AT THE FIRST COURT APPEARANCE, MOTHER AND HER CHILDREN WERE PLACED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF THE ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN’S SERVICES (ACS); IN THE FACE OF NO EVIDENCE MOTHER’S HOME AND CHILDREN WERE NOT WELL-CARED-FOR, FOR 18 MONTHS, SHE AND HER CHILDREN WERE SUBJECTED TO FREQUENT HOME VISITS, SEARCHES, COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE CHILDREN’S SCHOOL, AND VISITS BY LAW ENFORCEMENT; FAMILY COURT ACT SECTION 1054 DOES NOT AFFORD ACS SUCH BROAD POWERS OF SUPERVISION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Rosado, determined the order which placed nonrespondent mother (Sasha C) under the supervision of the Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) was “unlawful and represented a broad overreach beyond the scope of power permitted by Family Court Act section 1054 and in contravention of its purpose.” Nonrespondent mother reported domestic abuse by her husband. From that point on the court placed her under ACS supervision which, for 18 months, entailed frequent home visits and searches, frequent communication with her children’s school, visits by law enforcement, and frequent court appearances, all in the face of no evidence the home and children were not well-cared for. The detailed description of the ACS’s intrusion into mother’s life is harrowing and well-worth reading:

Family Court erred when it placed the mother and her entire household under sweeping, overbroad, and unchecked “ACS supervision and household monitoring” in its May 31, 2024 order of fact-finding and disposition. The error was compounded by the issuance of the February 28, 2025 order extending the supervision despite the lack of good cause shown or a sound basis in the record. Such conditions of supervision run afoul of the power and purpose of Family Court Act § 1054. While the statute provides that a court may direct a nonrespondent parent to undertake certain actions with respect to the child released into their care to ensure their accessibility for services, appointments, visitation and the like, it is clear, based on the unambiguous language in the statute, that the court may not place a parent who has not been accused of any wrongdoing under ACS supervision at the postdispositional stage of the proceeding (id.; cf. Family Court Act § 1057). Even were we to accept ACS’s argument that the mother acquiesced to its request for supervision at the May 30, 2024 disposition, her agreement is irrelevant. It bears noting that the supervision proposed by ACS on that date to conduct “video visits with the children,” was a departure from the supervision that was exercised by ACS postdisposition.

To the extent that ACS argues that Family Court’s temporary extension of supervision over the mother’s household was reasonable given, among other things, the mother’s history of “failing to report the father’s neglect by domestic violence,” we once again find that ACS’s policy of pursuing supervision in such cases “reinforces the coercive control underpinning abusive relationships, turns survivors into suspects, and requires the nonrespondent parent to answer for the respondent parent’s abusive behaviors” and that adhering to such a policy would permit ACS to continue surveillance of the mother simply because the child’s father committed acts of domestic violence against her … . We reject this policy based on its faulty and unlawful premises … . Matter of L.M. (H.M.), 2026 NY Slip Op 05061, First Dept 8-20-26

Practice Point: This is an important opinion which places limits on the power of an agency, pursuant to Family Court Act section 1054, to subject a nonrespondent parent to supervision. Here nonrespondent mother reported domestic abuse by her husband. In the absence of any evidence her home and children were not well-cared-for, she was unlawfully subjected to home visits and searches, unwarranted communications with the children’s school, even visits by law enforcement, for a period of 18 months.

August 20, 2026

THE FAMILY COURT ACT ALLOWS COMMITMENT TO JAIL FOR SIX MONTHS FOR EACH VIOLATION OF AN ORDER OF PROTECTION; HERE THE 42-MONTH COMMITMENT WAS AFFIRMED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Ventura, determined father was properly committed to jail for 42 months for 10 violations of orders of protection: Father argued the commitment could not be more than 30 days per violation:

After a hearing on both violation petitions … the Family Court found that the father willfully violated the temporary orders of protection … on 10 separate occasions. In an order of commitment … , the court, inter alia, committed the father to the custody of the New York City Department of Correction for a period of 42 months. The court rejected the father’s argument that, pursuant to Judiciary Law § 751, the court only had the authority to sentence him to 30 days in jail for each willful violation. The court determined that it had the authority to impose 10 consecutive six-month terms of incarceration based on its finding that the father committed 10 separate willful violations, which would amount to a maximum permissible sentence of 60 months in jail, and imposed the 42-month term of incarceration. The father appeals, asserting that the maximum permissible sentence was a total of 300 days in jail. * * *

Sections 846-a and 1072 of the Family Court Act provide a “specific punishment or other remedy” for a willful violation of an order of protection issued under article 10 of the Family Court Act (Family Ct Act § 156). Accordingly, Judiciary Law § 751 does not apply, and the Family Court was authorized to commit the father to jail for a period of 42 months upon the court’s finding that, on 10 separate occasions, the father violated temporary orders of protection issued under article 10 of the Family Court Act … . Matter of Austin C. (Rasaan K.C.), 2026 NY Slip Op 04944, Second Dept 8-12-26

August 12, 2026

Evidence, Family Law

THE DERIVATIVE NEGLECT FINDING WAS BASED ON A PRIOR FINDING MOTHER NEGLECTED THREE OLDER CHILDREN; BUT THE CONDUCT WHICH WAS THE BASIS OF THE PRIOR NEGLECT FINDING WAS NOT DESCRIBED IN THE MOTION PAPERS; THE BURDEN OF PROOF, THEREFORE, NEVER SHIFTED TO MOTHER AND THE MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court, determined the burden never shifted to mother in this derivative neglect proceeding. The derivative neglect finding was based upon a prior finding mother neglected three older children. But the order in that case did not describe the conduct that resulted in the “Inadequate guardianship” finding:

… [W]e conclude that the court erred in granting the motion because petitioner’s submissions did not satisfy its initial burden to show that the subject child was derivatively neglected … . To the extent that petitioner relied on the court’s prior order of disposition finding that the mother had neglected the three older children as the basis to support a finding of derivative neglect with respect to the subject child, we note that the prior order merely states that she neglected the older children through “[i]nadequate guardianship, thus placing the children at risk of harm.” Inasmuch as the prior order did not identify what conduct by the mother had been substantiated for purposes of making the “inadequate guardianship” finding with respect to the three older children, petitioner did not establish the egregiousness of that conduct or show that, with respect to the subject child, the potential harmful result of that conduct could be said to reasonably still exist … . In other words, the evidence supplied by petitioner did not establish, as a matter of law, the nature of the mother’s conduct that supported the prior finding of neglect or its surrounding circumstances … . Matter of Ty’Shawn B., 2026 NY Slip Op 04694, Fourth Dept 7-24-26

Practice Point: A motion for summary judgment seeking a derivative neglect finding cannot merely mention a prior “inadequate guardianship” finding regarding mother’s other children with no description of the underlying conduct. The moving papers must demonstrate egregious conduct which is ongoing.

July 24, 2026

Criminal Law, Family Law

DEFENDANT’S SHOWING A HANDGUN TO HER EX-BOYFRIEND DID NOT CONSTITUTE “DISPLAYING” THE WEAPON IN FURTHERANCE OF THE OFFENSE; THEREFORE THERE WAS NO IMPEDIMENT TO REMOVING THE SEVENTEEN-YEAR-OLD DEFENDANT’S “CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON” CASE TO FAMILY COURT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Nowak, over an extensive dissent, determined the seventeen-year-old defendant’s showing her ex-boyfriend a handgun she had on her person dis not amount to “displaying” the weapon such that the case could not be removed to Family Court:

… [D]efendant was charged with a violent felony (see Penal Law § 70.02 [1] [b]), and thus the People could prevent removal to Family Court without a formal motion under one of the CPL 722.23 (2) (c) exceptions, i.e., as relevant here, that defendant “displayed a firearm, shotgun, rifle or deadly weapon as defined in the penal law in furtherance of [the charged] offense[s]” (CPL 722.23 [2] [c] [ii]; see Penal Law §§ 265.02 [3]; 265.03 [3]). * * *

… [D]efendant did not “further” her possession of the weapon merely by displaying it to her ex-boyfriend, even if she did so to emphasize her control of the handgun … .Every display of a handgun emphasizes control by the person possessing it, and thus every display would always further the charged offense. So too with the dissent’s proposed construction. Every display of a weapon provides evidence of possession—it is not possible to display the weapon without possessing it—and thus there would always be a “logical nexus” between a display and the possessory offense … . Either reading would effectively render meaningless the separate statutory requirement that the display “further[ ]” the charged offense (CPL 722.23 [2] [c] [ii]). Had the legislature wished to do so, it could have required that the People demonstrate only that the adolescent offender “displayed” a designated weapon, and stopped there, without also requiring that the offender did so “in furtherance of” the charged offense (CPL 722.23 [2] [c] [ii]). That language must be given effect and interpreted to require something more than merely displaying the weapon … . People v Neyshaliz M. V., 2026 NY Slip Op 04581, Fourth Dept 7-24-26

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for a discussion of what it means to “display” a weapon “in furtherance” of the charged offense (criminal possession of a weapon). Merely showing the weapon to defendant’s ex-boyfriend did not amount to displaying the weapon in furtherance of the offense.

July 24, 2026

Contract Law, Debtor-Creditor, Family Law, Usury

THE PARTIES IN THIS DIVORCE PROCEEDING ENTERED A LITIGATION FUNDING AGREEMENT IN WHICH DEFENDANT ADVANCED FUNDS TO PLAINTIFF IN RETURN FOR THE ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDS FROM THE DIVORCE CLAIM; DESPITE THE INCLUSION OF THE TERM “THIS IS NOT A LOAN” IN THE AGREEMENT, THE FIRST DEPARTMENT HELD THE AGREEMENT WAS IN FACT AN INVALID LOAN AT A USURIOUS 18.96% ANNUAL INTEREST RATE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Michael, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the parties’ divorce-litigation funding agreement was a usurious loan, not an investment, and was therefore void and unenforceable:

The parties entered into a Purchase and Sale Agreement, dated May 23, 2018 (the PSA), wherein defendant agreed to advance approximately$200,000 to plaintiff to fund the legal costs of plaintiff’s pending divorce action. In return, plaintiff agreed to assign to defendant his right to receive any proceeds from the divorce claim up to the amount owed to defendant under the PSA. The “Proceeds” consisted of “the total recovery from the Claim” and the “Claim” was defined as plaintiff’s right, title, and interest in and to any amount granted to plaintiff in connection with his pending divorce action, any appeal or settlement with respect thereto, and any related action. * * *

The PSA clarified that “THIS IS NOT A LOAN” and was expressly contingent on plaintiff’s “successful” recovery on the Claim. It proclaimed that “[i]f there is no recovery on the Claim, nothing will be owed to [defendant].” Yet, several provisions of the PSA together with the Sweetheart Guaranty … , entitled defendant to recoup the money it advanced plus interest even if “there is no recovery on the Claim,” such as in the event of plaintiff’s death or reconciliation with his wife. * * *

Considering the totality of the circumstances … , we find that the parties’ PSA was in fact a loan. The only remaining question is whether the loan was usurious. A loan is usurious if the interest exceeds the maximum legal rate of 16% (see General Obligations Law § 5-501[1], [2]; Banking Law § 14-a[1]). It is undisputed that under the PSA, interest accrued at 18.96% annually, which exceeds the legal limit. Denemark v New Ch. Capital, Inc., 2026 NY Slip Op 04553, First Dept 7-23-26

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for insight into when an agreement constitutes a “loan” subject to the usury law rather than an “investment.”

July 23, 2026

Civil Procedure, Family Law

FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO CONDUCT A “BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD” HEARING WHERE THE AUTHORIZED ADOPTION AGENCY WITHDREW ITS CONSENT TO THE ADOPTION; THE SECOND DEPARTMENT ASKED THE LEGISLATURE TO ADDRESS THIS STATUTORY PROBLEM (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Wooten, was constrained to find that the court did not have jurisdiction to conduct a “best interests of the child” hearing where the authorized adoption agency withdrew its consent to the adoption. The Second Department explained that the current statutory scheme places an authorized adoption agency in the role typically performed by Family Court and requested that the Legislature address the problem:

The primary issue presented by this appeal is whether a court reviewing an adoption proceeding has jurisdiction to entertain a hearing to determine the best interests of a child where an authorized agency with custody of the child has withdrawn or withheld its consent to the adoption petition. We are constrained by the statutory scheme for adoptions from an authorized agency to answer that question in the negative. However, the circumstances underlying this proceeding highlight the potential conflict between the governing statutory law and the paramount concerns of the best interests of the child and achieving permanency. We therefore take this occasion to ask the New York State Legislature to consider whether changes are needed to ensure the best interests of children placed in the custody of authorized agencies for the purpose of adoption. * * *

… [B]efore a best interests hearing was conducted, the proposed adoptive father withdrew the adoption petition insofar as asserted by him on the ground that he was no longer seeking to jointly adopt the child with the appellant. The proposed adoptive father’s withdrawal of the joint adoption petition insofar as asserted by him was precipitated by the biological parents’ decision to support adoption of the child by the proposed adoptive father alone.

,,, [T]he agency withdrew its consent to the joint adoption of the child by the proposed adoptive parents on the ground that the proposed adoptive father “is no longer petitioning the Court to adopt jointly with [the appellant].” The agency then moved to dismiss the adoption petition on the ground that the Family Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the adoption petition due to the agency’s withdrawal of its consent to the joint adoption. In support of the motion, the agency argued that dismissal of the adoption petition was mandated, without a best interests hearing, since the agency had lawful custody of the child and, therefore, its consent to the adoption was required pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 111. Matter of Aurora A. (Leigh A.–Giuseppe A.), 2026 NY Slip Op 04500, Second Dept 7-22-26

July 22, 2026

Civil Procedure, Criminal Law, Family Law

THE REFEREE DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO DISMISS THE FAMILY OFFENSE PETITION; NEITHER MOTHER NOR THE RESPONDENT HUSBAND (WHO DID NOT APPEAR) CONSENTED TO THE REFEREE’S HEARING THE MATTER; THE POWERS OF A REFEREE ARE EXPLAINED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversal the order by the referee dismissing the family offense proceeding, determined the referee was without jurisdiction to decide the matter because neither mother nor respondent husband (who did not appear) consented the referee hearing the matter:

“A referee derives authority from an order of reference by the court (see CPLR 4311), which can be made only upon consent of the parties, except in limited circumstances” … . “Absent the parties’ consent to the reference, the . . . [r]eferee ha[s] the power only to hear and report [their] findings” … . An appropriate order of reference is thus an “essential jurisdictional predicate” to the authority of the referee to act … , and a referee “who attempts to determine matters not referred to [them] by the order of reference acts beyond and in excess of [their] jurisdiction” … .

Here, as noted, petitioner never consented to the Referee hearing the matter. Although CPLR 4317 (b) permits a referee to hear and determine an issue without the consent of the parties where the trial of the issue “will require the examination of a long account,” where the issue is one “of damages separately triable and not requiring a trial by jury,” or “where otherwise authorized by law,” none of those exceptions to the consent requirement applies here. Thus, the Referee “lacked jurisdiction to dismiss the petition” … , even without prejudice. We note in any event that, absent a fact-finding hearing, which did not take place, the Referee had no grounds to dismiss the petition based on insufficient evidence. Matter of Fournier v Perez, 2026 NY Slip Op 04063, Fourth Dept 6-26-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for a concise explanation of the powers of a Family Court referee.

June 26, 2026

Family Law

A RARE SITUATION WHERE SUSPENSION OF THE NONCUSTODIAL PARENT’S CHILD SUPPORT OBLIGATION WAS WARRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Gesmer, over an extensive dissent, affirmed Supreme Court’s denial of mother’s motion for pendente lite child support in the amount of $25,000/month and $10,000/month travel allowance. It was determined mother deliberately and actively alienated the child from the father:

Based on clear and convincing evidence presented at the 35-day custody trial, the court determined that the mother had deliberately and actively alienated the child from the father in “one of the most clear-cut and disturbing examples of parental alienation that this court has observed through thousands of custody cases over many years.” Accordingly, the court reasonably determined that this is one of the unfortunate and rare situations where suspension of the noncustodial parent’s child support obligation was warranted. Specifically, the court decided the pendente lite motion by directing the father to pay 90% of the child’s unreimbursed medical and mental health expenses and otherwise suspended the father’s child support obligation until the child’s visitation with the father was “meaningfully resumed” or “there is otherwise good cause to resume the support” … . * * *

As the motion court found, the child’s reasonable and appropriate needs are being met … . It is undisputed that the mother and child continue to reside in a 1,500 square foot luxury apartment with views of Central Park and that the father continues to pay all of the child’s expenses for private school, extracurricular activities and tutoring, in addition to 90% of her unreimbursed medical and mental health expenses. Rosenfeld v Rosenfeld, 2026 NY Slip Op 04048, First Dept 6-25-26

June 25, 2026

Attorneys, Family Law, Judges

MOTHER’S BEHAVIOR DID NOT AMOUNT TO A FORFEITURE OF HER RIGHT TO COUNSEL IN THIS VISITATION PROCEEDING (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the order of Family Court in this visitation proceeding, determined mother was denied her right to counsel. After attempts to assign counsel failed, the judge essentially forced mother to proceed without an attorney:

Pursuant to Family Ct Act § 262 (a), respondents in visitation proceedings have a right to be represented by counsel and, if they are financially unable to obtain counsel, have the right to have counsel assigned by the court … . * * *

“Here, the record is clear that the mother did not wish to proceed pro se, but was forced to do so” … ; as such, “the record . . . does not indicate that [she] made a knowing and intelligent waiver of [her] rights to be represented by counsel” … . It appears from the record that Family Court determined that the mother had forfeited her right to counsel. Indeed, “[a] litigant may forfeit the right to assigned counsel through a persistent pattern of threatening, abusive, obstreperous, and uncooperative behavior with successive assigned counsel” … . However, such a forfeiture is an “extreme, last-resort” based upon “egregious conduct by a [respondent]” … . Simply put, while we are certainly mindful of the difficult position Family Court was in, “the record fails to clearly reflect that the mother engaged in the sort of egregious conduct that would justify a finding that she forfeited her right to assigned counsel” … . Matter of Carlene R. v Heather A., 2026 NY Slip Op 04015, Third Dept 6-25-24

Practice Point: In a Family Court visitation proceeding a party’s waiver of the right to counsel must be explicit. Here it was clear mother did not wish to go forward pro se.

June 25, 2026

Evidence, Family Law, Social Services Law

THE PETITIONER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT MADE DILIGENT EFFORTS TO STRENGTHEN THE PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP IN THIS TERMINATION-OF-PARENTAL-RIGHTS PROCEEDING; PERMANENT NEGLECT FINDING VACATED; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined petitioner in this termination-of-parental-rights proceeding, did not demonstrate make a diligent effort to encourage and strengthen the parent-child relationship. The permanent neglect finding was vacated:

“When a foster care agency brings a proceeding to terminate parental rights on the ground of permanent neglect, it must, as a threshold matter, prove by clear and convincing evidence that it has fulfilled its statutory duty to exercise diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parent-child relationship” (… see Social Services Law § 384-b[7][a]). “Those efforts must include counseling, making suitable arrangements for parental access, providing assistance to the parents to resolve the problems preventing the child’s discharge, and advising the parents of the child’s progress and development” … . “An agency must always determine the particular problems facing a parent with respect to the return of his or her child and make affirmative, repeated, and meaningful efforts to assist the parent in overcoming these handicaps” … .

Here, the petitioner failed to meet its initial burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that it exercised diligent efforts to strengthen the parental relationship between the father and the children … . The evidence adduced at the fact-finding hearing failed to establish that the petitioner arranged any parental access between the father and the children, referred the father to any services, or assisted the father with obtaining suitable housing. Matter of Elijah L. Jr. (Elijah L.), 2026 NY Slip Op 03963, Second Dept 6-24-26

Practice Point: In a termination-of-parental-rights proceeding the agency must demonstrate that diligent efforts to strengthen the parent-child relationship were made. Here the proof of diligent efforts was lacking.

June 24, 2026