You are here: / Family Law

CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST PROPERLY IMPOSED UPON PROPERTY PURCHASED AND IMPROVED WITH MARITAL FUNDS BUT TITLED TO ANOTHER.

The Second Department determined a constructive trust was properly imposed on Florida property in this divorce action. The wife, who sought the constructive trust, alleged that marital funds were used to buy and improve the property and the property was placed in her husband’s father’s (Boris’s) name for tax purposes:

” The elements of a constructive trust are (1) a fiduciary or confidential relationship; (2) an express or implied promise; (3) a transfer in reliance on the promise; and (4) unjust enrichment'” … . “[A]s these elements serve only as a guideline, a constructive trust may still be imposed even if all of the elements are not established” … . “Thus, although the elements of a constructive trust must be proved by clear and convincing evidence … , [t]he constructive trust doctrine is given broad scope to respond to all human implications of a transaction in order to give expression to the conscience of equity and to satisfy the demands of justice'” … .

Here, evidence adduced at the hearing showed that the wife was related to the husband and Boris through marriage and that Boris allowed the Florida apartment to be used solely by the husband and wife as their vacation home for many years. Therefore, the first element for the imposition of a constructive trust was satisfied … . The wife also satisfied the second element by demonstrating the existence of an implied promise that [husband’s father] was holding title to the Florida apartment for purposes convenient to the husband and that the apartment belonged to the husband and wife … . She also demonstrated that, in reliance on that implied promise, marital funds were used to purchase the apartment and to make renovations costing more than $150,000 … . Furthermore, the wife demonstrated that a constructive trust was necessary ” to satisfy the demands of justice'” … . Kaprov v Stalinsky, 2016 NY Slip Op 08509, 2nd Dept 12-21-16

 

FAMILY LAW (EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION, CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST PROPERLY IMPOSED UPON PROPERTY PURCHASED AND IMPROVED WITH MARITAL FUNDS BUT TITLED TO ANOTHER)/EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION (CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST PROPERLY IMPOSED UPON PROPERTY PURCHASED AND IMPROVED WITH MARITAL FUNDS BUT TITLED TO ANOTHER)/CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST (EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION, CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST PROPERLY IMPOSED UPON PROPERTY PURCHASED AND IMPROVED WITH MARITAL FUNDS BUT TITLED TO ANOTHER)

, ,

TESTIMONY AT THE FACT FINDING HEARING ABOUT THE IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED BECAUSE IT DIFFERED SIGNIFICANTLY FROM THE PROCEDURE DESCRIBED IN THE VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE FORM.

The First Department, reversing Family Court’s juvenile delinquent adjudication, determined the testimony at the fact finding hearing about the identification procedure was so different from the description in the voluntary disclosure form [VDF] that the identification evidence should not have been admitted:

In a voluntary disclosure form [VDF], the presentment agency informed appellant that the complainant identified him inside a restaurant. Consistent with this notice, the arresting detective testified at the suppression hearing that he saw appellant and two companions, whom he had been following, enter the restaurant, that the complainant arrived at the scene, and that despite the officer’s instruction for the complainant to wait outside, the complainant entered the restaurant shortly after the detective did and there identified appellant. Based on this testimony, the court denied suppression, finding that the identification was a “spontaneous or un-arranged identification.” However, when the complainant ultimately testified at the fact-finding hearing, he testified that he never entered the restaurant, but rather that he identified appellant after the detective brought the three boys out of the restaurant and lined them up against a wall.

Although an inconsequential defect in a notice may be excused … , here the discrepancy between the two accounts of the identification was not inconsequential, but rather reflected that the VDF provided inadequate notice of the evidence the presentment agency intended to present at the fact-finding hearing … . Accordingly, the court should have granted appellant’s Family Ct Act § 330.2(2) motion to preclude identification evidence, which was made after the complainant testified regarding the identification procedure outside the restaurant. Matter of Deavan W., 2016 NY Slip Op 08469, 1st Dept 12-15-16

 

FAMILY LAW (TESTIMONY AT THE FACT FINDING HEARING ABOUT THE IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED BECAUSE IT DIFFERED SIGNIFICANTLY FROM THE PROCEDURE DESCRIBED IN THE VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE FORM)/CRIMINAL LAW (FAMILY COURT, JUVENILE DELINQUENCY, TESTIMONY AT THE FACT FINDING HEARING ABOUT THE IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED BECAUSE IT DIFFERED SIGNIFICANTLY FROM THE PROCEDURE DESCRIBED IN THE VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE FORM)/JUVENILE DELINQUENCY (TESTIMONY AT THE FACT FINDING HEARING ABOUT THE IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED BECAUSE IT DIFFERED SIGNIFICANTLY FROM THE PROCEDURE DESCRIBED IN THE VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE FORM)/EVIDENCE (FAMILY COURT, JUVENILE DELINQUENCY, TESTIMONY AT THE FACT FINDING HEARING ABOUT THE IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED BECAUSE IT DIFFERED SIGNIFICANTLY FROM THE PROCEDURE DESCRIBED IN THE VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE FORM)/IDENTIFICATION (FAMILY COURT, JUVENILE DELINQUENCY, TESTIMONY AT THE FACT FINDING HEARING ABOUT THE IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED BECAUSE IT DIFFERED SIGNIFICANTLY FROM THE PROCEDURE DESCRIBED IN THE VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE FORM)

,

PROPER FOUNDATION HAD BEEN LAID, FACEBOOK MESSAGES BETWEEN MOTHER AND CHILD SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED IN EVIDENCE IN THIS ABANDONMENT PROCEEDING.

In an abandonment proceeding, Family Court erred when it would not allow Facebook messages between mother and child into evidence. The Third Department determined a proper foundation for the Facebook messages had been laid. The messages were crucial to mother’s attempt to demonstrate she had maintained contact with her child:

A recorded conversation — such as a printed copy of the content of a set of cell phone instant messages — may be authenticated through, among other methods, the “testimony of a participant in the conversation that it is a complete andaccurate reproduction of the conversation and has not been altered” … . Notably, “[t]he credibility of the authenticating witness and any motive she [or he] may have had to alter the evidence go to the weight to be accorded this evidence, rather than its admissibility” … . Respondent testified that she was present when her counsel printed the Facebook messages at his office, and that she reviewed the entire document to ensure that it was a full and complete copy. The … stipulation and respondent’s testimony, when combined with her adult son’s testimony confirming that he had provided respondent with his account information, password and permission to use the account for communication with the child, constituted a sufficient foundation for the admission into evidence of the printed messages and her related testimony … .

By erroneously precluding this proffered evidence, Family Court deprived respondent of her due process right to a full and fair opportunity to be heard. In a proceeding to terminate parental rights “the court is obliged to ensure that the proceeding is fair and that due process is afforded to an individual whose parental rights may be terminated” … . The frequency and content of these Facebook communications are relevant in determining whether respondent initiated or maintained substantial contact with the child during the statutory period … .  Matter of Colby II. (Sheba II.), 2016 NY Slip Op 08402, 3rd Dept 12-15-16

 

FAMILY LAW (PROPER FOUNDATION HAD BEEN LAID, FACEBOOK MESSAGES BETWEEN MOTHER AND CHILD SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED IN EVIDENCE IN THIS ABANDONMENT PROCEEDING)/ABANDONMENT (FAMILY LAW, PROPER FOUNDATION HAD BEEN LAID, FACEBOOK MESSAGES BETWEEN MOTHER AND CHILD SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED IN EVIDENCE IN THIS ABANDONMENT PROCEEDING)/EVIDENCE (FAMILY LAW, PROPER FOUNDATION HAD BEEN LAID, FACEBOOK MESSAGES BETWEEN MOTHER AND CHILD SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED IN EVIDENCE IN THIS ABANDONMENT PROCEEDING)/FACEBOOK MESSAGES (FAMILY LAW, PROPER FOUNDATION HAD BEEN LAID, FACEBOOK MESSAGES BETWEEN MOTHER AND CHILD SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED IN EVIDENCE IN THIS ABANDONMENT PROCEEDING)/RECORDED CONVERSATION (FACEBOOK MESSAGES, FAMILY LAW, PROPER FOUNDATION HAD BEEN LAID, FACEBOOK MESSAGES BETWEEN MOTHER AND CHILD SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED IN EVIDENCE IN THIS ABANDONMENT PROCEEDING)

,

HEARING SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD ON BIRTH PARENT’S PETITION TO ENFORCE A POSTADOPTION AGREEMENT ALLOWING THE BIRTH PARENT’S VISITATION WITH THE CHILD.

The Third Department determined a hearing should have been held on a birth parent’s petition to enforce a postadoption agreement which allowed visitation by the parent:

Family Court erred in dismissing the petition without an evidentiary hearing. Pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 112-b (4), birth parents and adoptive parents may enter into a legally enforceable agreement regarding postadoption contact that may thereafter be enforced by filing a petition in Family Court … . Enforcement of a postadoption contact agreement, however, “will only be ordered if it is determined to be in the child’s best interests” … , and “[a]n evidentiary hearing is generally necessary to determine what is in the best interests of the child” … .

Here, while there were three appearances in Family Court on the petition at which the interested parties made factual representations, primarily through counsel, and legal arguments on the merits of the petition, no testimony was taken and no documentary evidence was admitted for consideration. The child’s adoptive parents and the attorney for the child opposed enforcement of the postadoption contact agreement and any contact between the child and petitioner based upon, among other factors, an alleged multi-year lapse in contact between petitioner and the child. The information submitted to the court raised factual questions regarding whether visits with petitioner would be in the child’s best interests or detrimental to those interests, necessitating an evidentiary hearing on that determinative issue … .

Further, the adoptive parents are persons whose interests may be adversely or inequitably affected by an order enforcing the postadoption contact agreement and, therefore, they should have been named as parties … . Matter of Lynn X. (Joseph W.), 2016 NY Slip Op 08415, 3rd Dept 12-15-16

 

FAMILY LAW (HEARING SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD ON BIRTH PARENT’S PETITION TO ENFORCE A POSTADOPTION AGREEMENT ALLOWING THE BIRTH PARENT’S VISITATION WITH THE CHILD)/POSTADOPTION AGREEMENT (HEARING SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD ON BIRTH PARENT’S PETITION TO ENFORCE A POSTADOPTION AGREEMENT ALLOWING THE BIRTH PARENT’S VISITATION WITH THE CHILD)/VISITATION (FAMILY LAW, HEARING SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD ON BIRTH PARENT’S PETITION TO ENFORCE A POSTADOPTION AGREEMENT ALLOWING THE BIRTH PARENT’S VISITATION WITH THE CHILD)/ADOPTION (POSTADOPTION AGREEMENTS, HEARING SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD ON BIRTH PARENT’S PETITION TO ENFORCE A POSTADOPTION AGREEMENT ALLOWING THE BIRTH PARENT’S VISITATION WITH THE CHILD)

GENETIC MARKER TESTING SHOULD NOT BE ORDERED BEFORE RESOLUTION OF WHETHER THE DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL APPLIES TO PRECLUDE DENIAL OF PATERNITY.

The Second Department determined Family Court erred by ordering genetic marker testing before resolving the issue of equitable estoppel:

Family Court Act § 532 provides that, in a proceeding to establish paternity, “on the court’s own motion or the motion of any party, [the court] shall order the mother, her child and the alleged father to submit to one or more genetic marker or DNA tests” (Family Ct Act § 532[a]…). However, “[n]o paternity test shall be ordered upon a written finding by the court that it is not in the best interests of the child on the basis of, inter alia, equitable estoppel” … . “Where a party to a paternity proceeding raises an issue of equitable estoppel, that issue must be resolved before any biological testing is ordered” … . Matter of Tralisa R. v Max S., 2016 NY Slip Op 08236, 2nd Dept 12-7-16

FAMILY LAW (GENETIC MARKER TESTING SHOULD NOT BE ORDERED BEFORE RESOLUTION OF WHETHER THE DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL APPLIES TO PRECLUDE DENIAL OF PATERNITY)/PATERNITY (GENETIC MARKER TESTING SHOULD NOT BE ORDERED BEFORE RESOLUTION OF WHETHER THE DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL APPLIES TO PRECLUDE DENIAL OF PATERNITY)/GENETIC MARKER TESTING (PATERNITY, GENETIC MARKER TESTING SHOULD NOT BE ORDERED BEFORE RESOLUTION OF WHETHER THE DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL APPLIES TO PRECLUDE DENIAL OF PATERNITY)/EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL (PATERNITY, GENETIC MARKER TESTING SHOULD NOT BE ORDERED BEFORE RESOLUTION OF WHETHER THE DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL APPLIES TO PRECLUDE DENIAL OF PATERNITY)

ALTHOUGH THE DEBT WAS INCURRED DURING MARRIAGE, WIFE WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PORTION OF THE DEBT USED SOLELY TO FURTHER HUSBAND’S BUSINESS.

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly allocated payment of a home equity line of credit (HELOC) incurred during marriage, taking into account a portion of the debt was used solely to further defendant-husband’s business:

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in directing the defendant to pay two-thirds of the balance of a home equity line of credit (hereinafter the HELOC) or $198,667, and that the plaintiff was to be responsible for one-third of the balance of the HELOC or $99,330. In general, “[e]xpenses incurred prior to the commencement of a divorce action constitute marital debt and should be equally shared by the parties” … . However, a financial obligation incurred by one party in pursuit of his or her separate interests should remain that party’s separate liability … . Under the circumstances of this case, inasmuch as the evidence established that the HELOC debt was incurred for the dual purpose of improving the marital residence and paying bills as well as funding the defendant’s separate business interest in which the plaintiff had no share, the defendant failed to show that the HELOC debt as to the defendant’s separate business interest should be shared equally. Horn v Horn, 2016 NY Slip Op 08198, 2nd Dept 12-7-16

FAMILY LAW (ALTHOUGH THE DEBT WAS INCURRED DURING MARRIAGE, WIFE WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PORTION OF THE DEBT USED SOLELY TO FURTHER HUSBAND’S BUSINESS)/MARITAL PROPERTY (ALTHOUGH THE DEBT WAS INCURRED DURING MARRIAGE, WIFE WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PORTION OF THE DEBT USED SOLELY TO FURTHER HUSBAND’S BUSINESS)

,

THE FINDING THAT PETITIONER’S CHILD WAS IN IMMINENT DANGER OF ABUSE, BASED SOLELY UPON A SHOPLIFTING INCIDENT, WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE, PETITIONER’S NAME SHOULD NOT BE ON A LIST WHICH WILL MAKE IT DIFFICULT TO CONTINUE HER CAREER IN CHILD CARE.

The First Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the administrative law judge’s (ALJ’s) finding that petitioner’s (mother’s) child was in imminent danger of harm was not supported by the evidence. Petitioner was caught shoplifting (wearing clothes under her clothes). At the time her five-year-old son was with her, and he too was wearing clothes under his clothes. The shoplifting charges were reduced to a violation and the record was sealed. Petitioner had no other contact with the criminal justice system. The child was deemed well cared for and happy. The issue was whether the petitioner’s name should be maintained on a list (“indicated” child abuse) which will make it difficult for her to continue her career in child care:

Under New York’s child protective scheme, a report of suspected child abuse or neglect will be marked “indicated” if the local agency determines after investigation that there is “some credible evidence of the alleged abuse or maltreatment” (Social Services Law § 412[7]). All childcare agencies and other agencies licensed by the state to provide certain services to children are required to inquire whether applicants for employment or to become foster or adoptive parents are subjects of indicated reports (Social Services Law § 424-a). An agency may choose to hire or approve persons on the list of those with indicated reports, but if it does, the agency must “maintain a written record, as part of the application file or employment record, of the specific reasons why such person was determined to be appropriate” for approval (Social Services Law § 424-a[2][a]). The names of subjects of indicated reports remain on the list until 10 years after the youngest child referred to in the report turns 18, unless earlier expunged (Social Services Law § 422[6]). * * *

… [T]he ALJ’s determination that petitioner’s actions were reasonably related to a position in childcare, the field of study petitioner is pursuing, was not rational. The legal standards for determining whether a child is maltreated … are repeated in the Guidelines. The ALJ failed to set forth his consideration of the relevant Guidelines for making such a determination, many of which, as the motion court pointed out, weighed in petitioner’s favor, including factors 2 (the seriousness and extent of any injury to child), 3 (harmful effect on the child of the subject’s actions or inactions), 5 (time since most recent incident of maltreatment), 6 (number of indicated incidents of abuse or maltreatment), 8(a) (whether the acts have been repeated), and 10 (whether reported behavior involved serious injury to, or death of, a child). The single factor the ALJ discussed, factor 8(b), “any information produced . . . in regard to . . . rehabilitation,” failed to consider that all of the evidence at the hearing indicated that petitioner has never been convicted of any crime…; no further [shoplifting] incidents had occurred; petitioner had no prior history with ACS (NYC Administration for Children’s Services); all of her family members interviewed expressed surprise at her behavior on the occasion leading to the report; and she told the caseworker she had “learned her lesson.” Matter of Natasha W. v New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs., 2016 NY Slip Op 08099, 1st Dept 12-1-16

FAMILY LAW (FINDING THAT PETITIONER’S CHILD WAS IN IMMINENT DANGER OF ABUSE, BASED SOLELY UPON A SHOPLIFTING INCIDENT, WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE, PETITIONER’S NAME SHOULD NOT BE ON A LIST WHICH WILL MAKE IT DIFFICULT TO CONTINUE HER CAREER IN CHILD CARE)/SOCIAL SERVICES LAW (CHILD ABUSE, FINDING THAT PETITIONER’S CHILD WAS IN IMMINENT DANGER OF ABUSE, BASED SOLELY UPON A SHOPLIFTING INCIDENT, WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE, PETITIONER’S NAME SHOULD NOT BE ON A LIST WHICH WILL MAKE IT DIFFICULT TO CONTINUE HER CAREER IN CHILD CARE)/CHILD ABUSE (FINDING THAT PETITIONER’S CHILD WAS IN IMMINENT DANGER OF ABUSE, BASED SOLELY UPON A SHOPLIFTING INCIDENT, WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE, PETITIONER’S NAME SHOULD NOT BE ON A LIST WHICH WILL MAKE IT DIFFICULT TO CONTINUE HER CAREER IN CHILD CARE)/CHILD CARE (FINDING THAT PETITIONER’S CHILD WAS IN IMMINENT DANGER OF ABUSE, BASED SOLELY UPON A SHOPLIFTING INCIDENT, WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE, PETITIONER’S NAME SHOULD NOT BE ON A LIST WHICH WILL MAKE IT DIFFICULT TO CONTINUE HER CAREER IN CHILD CARE)

,

UNDER THE FACTS, NO ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN FAILING TO AWARD PREJUDGMENT INTEREST ON A DISTRIBUTIVE AWARD THE WIFE FAILED TO PAY.

The Third Department determined Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion when it did not award prejudgment interest on a distributive award the wife had failed to pay. The matter came before Supreme Court when the husband moved to enforce the separation agreement:

“There is no automatic entitlement to prejudgment interest, under CPLR 5001, in matrimonial litigation” … . Rather, the decision to award prejudgment interest in a matrimonial action, as well as the rate and date from which it shall be computed, are matters within the sound discretion of the trial court … . Here, the record reflects that, following the execution of the separation agreement, issues arose regarding the accuracy of certain deeds and transfer documents prepared by the husband relative to the parcels of real property that were to be conveyed pursuant to the agreement. Such issues had not been resolved at the time of the husband’s motion to enforce the agreement, the wife claiming that certain inaccuracies still remained within the relevant documents. Although the wife’s obligation to tender the distributive award by the date prescribed in the separation agreement was not contingent upon the execution of the deeds transferring the real property, the wife explained that she had been advised by her attorney to withhold payment of the distributive award — which she had placed in a separate interest-bearing bank account — until the deeds were finalized and signed so as to ensure a contemporaneous exchange … . Under these circumstances, we cannot conclude that Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in choosing to award the husband all interest actually earned on the distributive award rather than prejudgment interest pursuant to CPLR 5001. Fori v Fori, 2016 NY Slip Op 08135, 3rd Dept 12-1-16

FAMILY LAW (UNDER THE FACTS, NO ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN FAILING TO AWARD PREJUDGMENT INTEREST ON A DISTRIBUTIVE AWARD THE WIFE FAILED TO PAY)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (FAMILY LAW, PREJUDGMENT INTEREST, UNDER THE FACTS, NO ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN FAILING TO AWARD PREJUDGMENT INTEREST ON A DISTRIBUTIVE AWARD THE WIFE FAILED TO PAY)/INTEREST (FAMILY LAW, PREJUDGMENT INTEREST, UNDER THE FACTS, NO ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN FAILING TO AWARD PREJUDGMENT INTEREST ON A DISTRIBUTIVE AWARD THE WIFE FAILED TO PAY)

CUSTODY AWARD REVERSED, FACTORS ERRONEOUSLY RELIED UPON BY FAMILY COURT EXPLAINED IN DETAIL. 

The First Department, reversing Family Court, determined mother, not father, should be awarded sole legal custody of the child:

The Family Court Judge presiding over the trial of this complex and long-running custody matter was clearly concerned with the child’s best interests and wrestled with concerns about the mother’s history of mental health issues, and the effect on the child of a “temporary” award of custody to the father, issued years prior to assignment of the case to the trial judge. However, a thorough review of the record does not provide a sound and substantial basis for the award of custody to the father, and requires an award of custody to the mother. * * *

In its award of custody to the father, the Family Court erred in several respects. First, it gave substantial weight to the fact that the father had temporary custody of the child for four years and nine months. This fact should not have been a basis, without more, for a final custody award. * * *

Secondly, the Family Court gave excessive weight to the parties’ financial circumstances, noting that their finances favored the father because the father works, and the mother is unemployed and receives Supplemental Security Income (SSI). * * *

Third, there is no support for the Family Court’s finding that the neutral forensic evaluator “made an initial superficial assessment of the parties at the commencement of his evaluative process, cast his lot with [the mother], and worked from that point to present his findings in her favor.” * * *

Fourth, Family Court’s concern about the mother’s mental health history is understandable, but its conclusions disregard crucial evidence and its determination is not in the child’s best interests. In March 2015, when the trial was completed, the mother was in remission, had not been hospitalized since November 2010, and, in the five years since then, had been compliant with treatment by her psychiatrist and therapist. * * *

Fifth, [the child’s]  close relationship to her siblings, all of whom reside with her mother, also weighs in favor of awarding custody to the mother, since “the stability and companionship to be gained from keeping the children together is an important factor for the court to consider” in making a custody determination …, because “[y]oung brothers and sisters need each other’s strengths and association in their everyday and often common experiences, and to separate them, unnecessarily, is likely to be traumatic and harmful” … . …

Finally, Family Court improperly considered this a relocation case, governed by Matter of Tropea v Tropea (87 NY2d 727, 740-741 [1996]). However, since there has been no prior custody order, Tropea does not govern, and relocation should have been considered as one factor in determining the child’s best interests … . Matter of Michael B. (Lillian B.), 2016 NY Slip Op 08101, 1st Dept 12-1-16

 

FAMILY LAW (CUSTODY AWARD REVERSED, FACTORS ERRONEOUSLY RELIED UPON BY FAMILY COURT EXPLAINED IN DETAIL)/CUSTODY (CUSTODY AWARD REVERSED, FACTORS ERRONEOUSLY RELIED UPON BY FAMILY COURT EXPLAINED IN DETAIL)

,

INADVERTENT RECORDING OF A CONVERSATION BETWEEN MOTHER AND CHILD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE, NO TESTIMONY THE RECORDING WAS NOT ALTERED AND NO EVIDENCE OF CHAIN OF CUSTODY.

The Third Department determined the inadvertent recording of a conversation between mother and child in this custody proceeding should not have been admitted in evidence. Although mother testified the recording capture her and the child’s voices, she did not testify the recording had not been altered:

“The predicate for admission of tape recordings in evidence is clear and convincing proof that the tapes are genuine and that they have not been altered. Absent such proof, the [witness’s] concession that the voice on the tapes is his or hers and that he or she recalls making some of the statements on the tapes does not exclude the possibility of alteration and, therefore, does not sufficiently establish authenticity to make the tapes admissible” … . The foundation laid for the introduction of the recording into evidence was the mother’s testimony that the telephone call was made by the child using the mother’s cell phone, the voices on the recording were hers and the child’s, she listened to the recording “[q]uite a few” times and her friend, Amanda Coon, was present when the recording was made. After this testimony, Family Court admitted the recording into evidence. The mother’s testimony was insufficient to authenticate the recording because she did not testify as to whether or not the recording was the complete and unaltered conversation between her and the child, and “there was no attempt to offer proof about who recorded the conversation, how it was recorded (e.g., the equipment used) or the chain of custody” … . Matter of Williams v Rolf, 2016 NY Slip Op 07884, 3rd Dept 11-23-16

FAMILY LAW (INADVERTENT RECORDING OF A CONVERSATION BETWEEN MOTHER AND CHILD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE, NO TESTIMONY THE RECORDING WAS NOT ALTERED AND NO EVIDENCE OF CHAIN OF CUSTODY)/EVIDENCE (FAMILY LAW, CUSTODY, INADVERTENT RECORDING OF A CONVERSATION BETWEEN MOTHER AND CHILD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE, NO TESTIMONY THE RECORDING WAS NOT ALTERED AND NO EVIDENCE OF CHAIN OF CUSTODY)/CUSTODY (EVIDENCE, INADVERTENT RECORDING OF A CONVERSATION BETWEEN MOTHER AND CHILD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE, NO TESTIMONY THE RECORDING WAS NOT ALTERED AND NO EVIDENCE OF CHAIN OF CUSTODY)/RECORDINGS (FAMILY LAW, CUSTODY, INADVERTENT RECORDING OF A CONVERSATION BETWEEN MOTHER AND CHILD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE, NO TESTIMONY THE RECORDING WAS NOT ALTERED AND NO EVIDENCE OF CHAIN OF CUSTODY)

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