You are here: / Family Law
,

Petitioner, Who Was Not a Biological or Adoptive Parent of the Child, Was Adjudicated a Parent in a Support Proceeding Brought by the Respondent—Under the Doctrine of Judicial Estoppel, Petitioner Was Deemed a Parent in a Subsequent Custody/Visitation Proceeding Brought by the Petitioner

The Second Department determined a determination that petitioner (Arriago) was the child's parent in a support proceeding precluded the respondent (Dukoff) from arguing petitioner was not the child's parent in a subsequent custody/visitation proceeding.  Arriago and Dukoff were domestic partners in a same-sex relationship.  Arriago was artificially inseminated and gave birth to the child.  After successfully seeking child support from Arriago because Arriago was a parent of the child, Dukoff argued that Arriago did not have standing, as neither the biological or adoptive parent, to bring the custody/visitation proceeding.  Family Court disagreed and awarded Arriago visitation:

Dukoff … argues that the court's conclusion that Arriaga had standing to commence this [custody/support] proceeding is contrary to the Court of Appeals' holdings in Debra H. v Janice R. (14 NY3d 576) and Matter of Alison D. v Virginia M. (77 NY2d 651). We disagree with Dukoff's contentions.

Domestic Relations Law § 70(a) provides, in part, that “either parent may apply to the supreme court for a writ of habeas corpus to have such minor child brought before such court; and [the court] may award the natural guardianship, charge and custody of such child to either parent . . . as the case may require” (emphasis added). This statute has also been construed to grant standing to ” either parent'” to apply for a writ of habeas corpus to determine the issue of visitation rights … . In Debra H., the Court of Appeals reaffirmed its holding …  that the term “parent” in Domestic Relations Law § 70 encompasses only the biological parent of a child or a legal parent by virtue of adoption and that a “de facto parent” or “parent by estoppel” could not seek visitation with a child who is in the custody of a fit parent (Debra H. v Janice R., 14 NY3d at 590 [internal quotation marks and emphasis omitted]…). In Debra H., however, the Court analyzed the significance of the civil union the parties had entered into in Vermont prior to the child's birth. The Court determined that, under Vermont law, a child born during a civil union was a child of both partners. Thus, it concluded, Debra H. was the child's parent under Vermont law. As a matter of comity, the Court recognized her as the child's parent under New York law as well, thereby conferring standing for her to seek visitation and custody at a best interests hearing (see Debra H. v Janice R., 14 NY3d at 601).

The Court of Appeals noted that recognizing Debra H. as a parent did not conflict with the public policy of New York and would not “undermine the certainty that Alison D. promises biological and adoptive parents and their children,” since “whether there has been a civil union in Vermont is as determinable as whether there has been a second-parent adoption. And both civil union and adoption require the biological or adoptive parent's legal consent, as opposed to the indeterminate implied consent featured in the various tests proposed to establish de facto or functional parentage” (Debra H. v Janice R., 14 NY3d at 600-601). At the heart of the Court's reasoning in Debra H. was a desire to provide a bright-line rule affording certainty and predictability to parents and children. The Court expressed concern that an equitable estoppel hearing would create protracted litigation on the issue of standing.

In this proceeding, Arriaga asserts that she has standing as a parent of the child pursuant to the doctrine of judicial estoppel. Under that doctrine, ” a party who assumes a certain position in a prior legal proceeding and secures a favorable judgment therein is precluded from assuming a contrary position in another action simply because his or her interests have changed'” … .

The concerns expressed by the Court of Appeals in Debra H. are not implicated in the present case, where Arriaga invoked the doctrine of judicial estoppel, not equitable estoppel. No hearing was required to decide whether the doctrine of judicial estoppel applies in this case, nor did the determination involve a “complicated” or “nonobjective test” (Debra H. v Janice R., 14 NY3d at 594). Just as in Debra H., whether Arriaga was adjudicated a parent of the child was “as determinable as whether there has been a second-parent adoption” (id. at 600).

Moreover, just as in second-parent adoptions, the adjudication of Arriaga as a parent of the child required the biological mother's affirmative legal consent, “as opposed to the indeterminate implied consent featured in the various tests proposed to establish de facto or functional parentage” (id. at 600-601). Indeed, here, Dukoff was the party who sought to have Arriaga adjudicated a parent. Although Dukoff did not consent to adjudicating Arriaga a parent of the child for the purposes of visitation rights, the biological mother in Debra H. also did not do so.  Matter of Arriaga v Dukoff, 2014 NY Slip Op 08990, 2nd Dept 12-24-14

 

,

Criteria for Challenge to Prenuptial Agreement Not Met

The First Department determined Family Court properly denied plaintiff’s request to extend the time for challenging a prenuptial agreement.  The court explained the analytical criteria for such a challenge:

New York has a long-standing “strong public policy favoring individuals ordering and deciding their own interests through contractual arrangements” … . It is axiomatic that a duly executed prenuptial agreement is presumed to be valid and controlling unless and until the party challenging it meets his or her very high burden to set it aside … . However, in many instances, “agreements addressing matrimonial issues have been subjected to limitations and scrutiny beyond that afforded contracts in general” … . Although “there is a heavy presumption that a deliberately prepared and executed written instrument manifests the true intention of the parties” …, an agreement between prospective spouses may be invalidated if the party challenging the agreement demonstrates that it was the product of fraud, duress, or other inequitable conduct … . Nevertheless, such results remain the exception rather than the rule. The burden of producing evidence of such fraud, duress or overreaching is on the party asserting the invalidity of the agreement … . Anonymous v Anonymous, 2014 NY Slip Op 08766, 1st Dept 12-16-14

 

,

Analytical Criteria Re: the Validity of a Stipulation Explained

In affirming the validity of a stipulation related to a divorce, the Second Department explained the relevant analysis, including the concept of ratification of the agreement by accepting its benefits:

” Stipulations of settlement are favored by the courts and are not lightly set aside'” … . A stipulation of settlement is an independent contract binding on the parties unless impeached or challenged for some cause recognized by law … . “Judicial review is to be exercised sparingly, with a goal of encouraging parties to settle their differences on their own” … . ” [A] stipulation of settlement which is fair on its face will be enforced according to its terms unless there is proof of fraud, duress, overreaching, or unconscionability'” … .

Here, the defendant established her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting, inter alia, the Stipulation, which contained an express representation that it was not a product of fraud or duress and which awarded the plaintiff meaningful benefits, as well as her affidavit wherein she averred that the parties’ attorneys were engaged in negotiations for months regarding the distribution of marital assets … . Furthermore, the defendant established that the plaintiff ratified the Stipulation and waived his claim to set aside the Stipulation by accepting the benefits of the Stipulation for a significant period of time … . Sabowitz v Sabowitz, 2014 NY Slip Op 08624, 2nd Dept 12-10-14

 

, ,

Plaintiff Wife’s Waiver of Her Entitlement (Pursuant to a Divorce Stipulation) to Cost of Living Adjustments (COLA) to Maintenance Payments (By Acceptance of Checks With No COLA for Years) Was Withdrawn In 2008 When She Commenced Suit to Enforce the COLA Provision of the Stipulation

The Second Department determined that plaintiff wife had waived her entitlement, pursuant to the terms of a divorce stipulation, to cost of living adjustment (COLA) of her maintenance until she commenced an action to enforce the COLA provision of the stipulation. Plaintiff wife had waived the COLA by accepting maintenance payments (without COLA) for years. The waiver, however, was withdrawn when suit was commenced in 2008:

Waiver, which is the voluntary and intentional relinquishment of a contract right, ” should not be lightly presumed' and must be based on a clear manifestation of intent' to relinquish a contractual protection” … . It may be accomplished by affirmative conduct or failure to act so as to evince an intent not to claim the purported advantage … .

The mere existence of a nonwaiver clause does not preclude waiver of a contract clause … . However, a “waiver is not created by negligence, oversight, or thoughtlessness, and cannot be inferred from mere silence” … .

As the plaintiff correctly contends, the record demonstrates that the plaintiff voluntarily relinquished her right to receive maintenance COLA increases as provided in the parties' 1983 stipulation from 1984 through May 2008, when such waiver was withdrawn … . Although the defendant is correct that the plaintiff raises for the first time on appeal her contention that she withdrew her waiver upon commencing this action, this contention may be reached since it involves a question of law that is apparent on the face of the record and could not have been avoided by the Supreme Court if it had been brought to its attention … . Thus, we reach this issue.

“A waiver, to the extent that it has been executed, cannot be expunged or recalled, but, not being a binding agreement, can, to the extent that it is executory, be withdrawn, provided the party whose performance has been waived is given notice of withdrawal and a reasonable time after notice within which to perform” … . Since the stipulation was an executory contract between the parties pursuant to which the defendant remained under a continuing obligation to pay maintenance to the plaintiff, upon the plaintiff's filing of the summons and complaint in this action, such waiver was withdrawn … . Stassa v Stassa, 2014 NY Slip Op 08629, 2nd Dept 12-10-14

 

Mother’s Parental Rights Should Not Have Been Terminated Based Upon a Violation of a Suspended Judgment—Best Interests of the Child Should Have Been Considered

The Second Department determined Family Court erred when it terminated the mother's parental rights after she violated a suspended judgment (imposing drug-related conditions) without taking into account the best interests of the child.  The evidence supported the conclusion that terminating the mother's parental rights was not in the best interests of the child:

The Family Court may revoke a suspended judgment after a hearing if it finds, by a preponderance of the evidence adduced, that the parent failed to comply with one or more of the conditions of the suspended judgment … . The best interests of the child, however, remain relevant at all stages of a permanent neglect proceeding, including at the revocation of a suspended judgment … . Here, the preponderance of the evidence supported a finding that the mother failed to comply with certain conditions set forth in the suspended judgment. However, the evidence did not support the Family Court's conclusion that it was in the best interest of the child to terminate the mother's parental rights.  Matter of Phoenix DA …, 2014 NY Slip OP 08638, 2nd Dept 12-10-14

 

, ,

Court Should Not Have Denied Biological Mother’s Petition to Enforce the Visitation Provision in a Surrender Agreement Without Making a Finding Based Upon the Best Interests of the Child—Failure to Make Such a Finding Rendered the Record Insufficient for Review—Matter Sent Back for a Hearing

The Second Department, over a dissent, determined that Family Court should not have denied the biological mother's petition to enforce the provision of a surrender agreement which allowed her to visit the child without a finding that the requested visitation is not in the best interests of the child.  Finding the record inadequate for review, the Second Department sent the matter back for a hearing:

Social Services Law § 383-c(2)(b) permits the parties to a judicial surrender agreement to provide for a biological parent's continued communication or contact with the child. In determining whether to approve the agreement, the court must determine whether continued contact with the biological parent would be in the child's best interests (see Social Services Law § 383-c[2][b]). A provision providing for visitation with the biological parent is not legally enforceable unless the court that approved the surrender agreement states, in a written order, that the provision would be in the child's best interests (see Domestic Relations Law § 112-b[2]; cf. Social Services Law § 383-c[2][b]). Even then, in an enforcement proceeding pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 112-b, a court “shall not enforce an order under this section unless it finds that the enforcement is in the child's best interests” (Domestic Relations Law § 112-b[4]). In other words, there must be a best interests judicial determination both at the time the surrender agreement is accepted and at the time that enforcement of a visitation provision is sought … . * * *

Here, the Family Court dismissed the petition without affording the biological mother an opportunity to establish that enforcement of the visitation provision of the surrender agreement would be in the child's best interests. Thus, there is no hearing record for us to review. Further, while it may be true that the Family Court was aware of facts and circumstances that may have supported a determination that enforcement of the visitation provision would not have been in the child's best interests, the record before us does not contain those facts. Accordingly, we are unable to conduct effective appellate review of the court's determination or to make required findings on our own  … . Matter of Jayden A, 2014 NY Slip Op 08637, 2nd Dept 12-10-14

 

,

Gun Found In Juvenile’s Shoe (After Juvenile Was Told to Remove His Shoes) Should Have Been Suppressed—Juvenile Could Not Be Arrested and Detained for a Violation (Disorderly Conduct Is Not a Crime) and Nothing More than a Frisk Is Justified During a Temporary Detention Pending the Arrival of a Juvenile’s Parents

The Second Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined that the search of the 15-year-old appellant (Jamal) was illegal and the gun found in appellant's shoe should have been suppressed.  The appellant, who had already been searched twice, was being wrongfully detained on a disorderly conduct charge (a violation, not a crime) at the time he was told to take off his shoes:

CPL 140.10 permits a police officer to arrest a person for any “offense” that is committed in the officer's presence. The term “offense” is broadly defined to include conduct for which a sentence to a term of imprisonment or a fine is provided by state or local law (see Penal Law § 10.00 [1]). Family Court Act § 305.2(2), however, provides that “[a]n officer may take a child under the age of sixteen into custody without a warrant in cases in which he [or she] may arrest a person for a crime . . . .” The term “crime” includes only misdemeanors and felonies, not violations (see Penal Law § 10.00[6]). Accordingly, a search may be conducted where a juvenile is taken into custody for conduct which, if committed by an adult, would constitute a crime … . As disorderly conduct is not a crime, Family Court Act § 305.2(2) prohibited Jamal's warrantless arrest for that offense … . Based on this record, it is clear that upon learning that Jamal was a juvenile the police nonetheless kept him under arrest with no statutory authority for doing so. * * *

…[W]hen Jamal was being held pending his parents' arrival, he was under temporary detention as opposed to arrest. “A temporary detention justifies only a frisk, not a full-fledged search” … . The removal of Jamal's shoes was far more intrusive than a frisk or a patdown … . We find no merit to the presentment agency's argument that safety required the removal of Jamal's shoes. “The touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness . . .” … . Considerations of safety provide no justification in this case where Jamal was continuously in police custody and had been searched twice before being directed to remove his shoes. It is of no moment that Jamal was directed to remove his shoes pursuant to an alleged standard procedure. “[A]n unreasonable search is not somehow rendered reasonable, and therefore constitutionally permissible, by the mere fact that a departmental procedure was followed” … . The standard of reasonableness still applies … . We recognize that in appropriate cases law enforcement officers are authorized to employ reasonable measures to guard against detainees' self-infliction of harm. Such reasonable measures may include the removal of belts and shoelaces … . Nonetheless, the removal of Jamal's shoes cannot be justified as a protective measure where, as noted above, he had been twice searched by police officers who had no reason to expect that he had “anything on him” or otherwise posed a danger. Matter of Jamal S, 2014 NY Slip Op 08470, 1st Dept 12-4-14

 

,

The Arresting Officer’s Stepping in Front of the Appellant As the Appellant Walked Away Was Not a Seizure But Rather Was a Continuation of the Officer’s Common-Law Right to Inquire

The Second Department determined the police officer who followed appellant as appellant walked away from him and then stepped in front of appellant acted properly.  Suppression of the handgun seized from appellant after a pat down search, therefore, was not required. The arresting officer responded to a call describing a disturbance at a restaurant.  The officer saw the appellant leave the restaurant and noticed a bulge in appellant's jacket pocket.  The officer then began following the appellant and eventually caught up to him (and stepped in front of him).  The court found that the officer's stepping in front of the appellant was not a seizure, but rather was a continuation of the officer's common-law right to inquire:

Contrary to the appellant's contention, the totality of the circumstances gave the officers a founded suspicion that criminal activity was afoot, which gave rise to the officers' common-law right to inquire … . While the appellant is correct that, initially, he had a constitutional right ” to be let alone' and to refuse to respond to police inquiry” …, under the circumstances presented here, the arresting officer's conduct in following and stepping in front of the appellant in an attempt to engage him was a continuation of the officer's own common-law right to inquire, not a seizure … . Hence, the conduct of the arresting officer in this regard was not improper.

Moreover, although the appellant continued to walk away from the arresting officer, the arresting officer kept pace with him, and ultimately approached him until they were only an arm's length away from each other. As such, it was proper for the officer to request that the appellant make his hands visible as a reasonable precautionary measure … . Additionally, from this close proximity, the officer observed what appeared to be the outline of a firearm in the appellant's right jacket pocket, which appeared to be pointed at the officer, placing him in fear for his safety. The officer thus properly conducted a limited pat-down search to determine if the bulge was a weapon … . Matter of Shariff H, 2014 NY Slip Op 08435, 2nd Dept 12-3-14

 

,

Grand Larceny 4th and Criminal Possession of Stolen Property 4th, as Those Statutes Relate to Credit/Debit Cards, Require the Theft and Possession of the Physical Card Itself, Not Merely the Unauthorized Use of the Credit/Debit Card Number—Other Offenses in the Penal Law Criminalize the Unauthorized Use of Credit/Debit Card Numbers

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Balkin, determined that the crimes of grand larceny (4th degree) and criminal possession of stolen property (4th degree), as they relate to credit/debit cards, require the theft and possession of the physical card, not simply the use of the card number to make a purchase.  [The 1st Department recently reached the opposite conclusion.]  Here the juvenile (Luis) used his grandfather’s debit card number to purchase sneakers.  The Second Department noted that there are provisions of the penal law which criminalize the unauthorized use of credit/debit card numbers (without physical possession of the card), but those crimes were not charged here:

…[G]iven the text of the provisions at issue, the context of the law and its development over the years, we agree with Luis and the Presentment Agency that “debit card” as used in Penal Law §§ 155.30(4) and 165.45(2) means the physical card, not the intangible account information associated with it. We also agree that, at bottom, this case involves errors made when the petition was drafted. Luis’s acts undoubtedly violated provisions of the Penal Law, but not the provisions charged in the petition.

A person who appropriates account information is not immune from punishment. The legislature has enacted laws to protect account information, in addition to the laws relating to the cards themselves. Specifically, in chapter 619 of the Laws of 2002, the legislature amended or added sections to various statutes in order to address the problem of people who engage in identity theft or use other people’s personal information without authorization. That legislation added the crimes of identity theft in the third, second, and first degrees (Penal Law §§ 190.78, 190.79, and 190.80), as well as unlawful possession of personal identification information in the third, second, and first degrees (Penal Law §§ 190.81, 190.82, and 190.83). Later, the legislature added “aggravated identity theft” (Penal Law § 190.80-a; see L 2008, ch 226, § 2). These provisions, similar to the provisions at issue in this case, make the criminal possession of account information a completed crime; no proof is required that the information was actually used.

One of the crimes added in 2002, unlawful possession of personal identification information in the third degree (Penal Law § 190.81), directly proscribes what Luis did in this case when he used his grandfather’s debit card number, without permission, to buy sneakers * * *:

Thus, just as the legislature added credit cards to the penal provisions of the law when the use of credit cards became widespread, and added debit cards when the use of debit cards became widespread, it also added provisions related to the unauthorized possession of the intangible account information when technology demanded.

We also note that crimes relating to the theft or possession of cards or account information are distinct from the crimes committed when the cards or account information are subsequently misused; the subsequent misuse is an additional crime, distinct from the taking of the card or the obtaining of the numbers … . Matter of Luis C, 2014 NY Slip Op 08428, 2nd Dept 12-3-14

 

Criteria for Termination of Parental Rights on the Ground of Mental Illness Explained

In affirming the termination of petitioner’s parental rights upon the ground of mental illness, the Third Department explained the criteria:

To terminate parental rights upon the ground of mental illness, the petitioning agency must demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, that the parent is — and for the foreseeable future will continue to be — unable to provide proper and adequate care for his or her [child] by reason of that parent’s mental illness. Such a showing, in turn, must include testimony from appropriate medical witnesses particularizing how the parent’s mental illness affects his or her present and future ability to care for the [child]” … . Matter of Kaitlyn X …, 2014 NY Slip Op 08272, 3rd Dept 11-26-14

 

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