You are here: / Family Law
, ,

ABSENT MOTHER’S ADMISSION TO THE ALLEGED FAMILY OFFENSE OR CONSENT TO AN ORDER OF PROTECTION, THE COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ISSUED A PERMANENT (TWO-YEAR) ORDER OF PROTECTION WITHOUT HOLDING A FACT-FINDING HEARING; MATTER REMITTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court and remitting the matter for fact-finding, determent the judge in this family offense proceeding should not have issued a permanent order of protection against mother without a fact-finding hearing. Unless a party admits the family offense or consents to an order of protection, the court may issue only a temporary order pending a fact-finding hearing:

… Family Court improperly issued an order of protection directing the mother, inter alia, to stay away from the father and the child for a period of two years, except for court-ordered parental access with the child. Upon expressing dissatisfaction with the mother’s behavior at the September 2023 conference, the court initially signaled an intent to issue a temporary order of protection. It then changed course and chose to issue an order of protection that it described as “permanent” and that would last “two years.” However, the court did so without holding a fact-finding hearing to determine whether the mother committed the family offenses alleged in the father’s petition. Nor did it obtain an admission from the mother that she committed such family offenses or secure her consent to the issuance of the order of protection. The court therefore failed “to observe the procedural steps set forth in Family Ct Act § 154-c(3)” before issuing that order … . … [S]ince a fact-finding hearing was not held and the court otherwise rendered its determination without receiving any evidence demonstrating that the mother committed the alleged family offenses, the record is not sufficient for this Court to render an independent determination on that question … . Matter of Acker v Teneyck, 2024 NY Slip Op 03043, Second Dept 6-5-24

Practice Point: Although a Family Court judge can issue a temporary order of protection during a family offense proceeding, the judge cannot issue a permanent order of protection unless the opposing party admits the family offense, consents to the order of protection, or the court holds a fact-finding hearing.

 

THE CUSTODY/GUARDIANSHIP HEARING TOOK SEVEN YEARS AND THE CHILDREN RESIDED WITH GRANDMOTHER AND UNCLE DURING THAT TIME; THE EXTENDED DISRUPTION OF CUSTODY CAUSED BY THE PROTRACTED COURT PROCEEDINGS DID NOT CONSTITUTE “EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES” WARRANTING AN AWARD OF CUSTODY TO GRANDMOTHER AND UNCLE (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, noted that the six or seven years during which the children resided with grandmother and uncle did not constitute “extraordinary circumstances” warranting granting grandmother and uncle, as opposed to mother, custody. Mother was seeking custody the entire time. The hearing started in 2014 and didn’t conclude until 2021:

… [T]he record does not support the Family Court’s determination that extraordinary circumstances existed so as to confer standing on the maternal grandmother and the maternal uncle to seek guardianship and custody of Blessin F. and Frank T., Jr. The evidence failed to establish that the mother voluntarily relinquished care and control of Blessin F. and Frank T., Jr., for an extended period of time … . Rather, the record evidences that the mother’s intention was for Blessin F. and Frank T., Jr., to reside with the maternal grandmother and the maternal uncle only temporarily during her brief period of incarceration so as to prevent them from being placed in foster care, and that the children would be returned to the mother’s care and custody as soon as she was released. The hearing testimony demonstrates that from the time the mother was released from her brief period of incarceration in November 2012, she has continued to attempt to regain custody of Blessin F. and Frank T., Jr., she immediately went to Brooklyn when she was released, she made a motion to vacate the temporary orders of guardianship and custody, and she filed a petition, inter alia, for custody of Blessin F. and Frank T., Jr. Moreover, during the proceedings, the mother continued to have supervised and unsupervised parental access with Blessin F. and Frank T., Jr., as permitted by the court, in Brooklyn, although she was still residing in Georgia with her other young children. Additionally, the prolonged separation between the mother and Blessin F. and Frank T., Jr., occurred during the mother’s attempts to regain custody during these protracted proceedings, and, thus, the extended disruption of custody does not amount to an extraordinary circumstance … . When the maternal grandmother and the maternal uncle first filed petitions for guardianship and custody between October 2012 and February 2013, Blessin F. and Frank T., Jr., had only been residing with them for, at most, a few months; however, the hearing, which commenced in May 2014, did not conclude until March 2021, almost seven years later. “‘Indeed, the courts may not deny the natural parent’s persistent demands for custody simply because it took so long'” … . Matter of Teofilo R.F. v Tanairi R.F., 2024 NY Slip Op 02814, Second Dept 5-22-24

Practice Point: Although a prolonged disruption of custody can constitute “extraordinary circumstances” warranting awarding custody to a non-parent, that is not the case where, as here, the disruption was the result of protracted court proceedings (seven years).

 

, ,

THE CUSTODY-RELATED PRINCIPALS UNDERLYING MICHAEL B, 80 NY2D 299, APPLY TO THIS SURROGATE’S COURT GUARDIANSHIP PROCEEDING WHERE BOTH PARENTS SEEK TO BE APPOINTED GUARDIAN OF THEIR DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED SON AS HE TURNS 18; NEW EVIDENCE RENDERED THE RECORD INSUFFICIENT FOR A GUARDIANSHIP DETERMINATION; A NEW HEARING WAS ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Miller, in this Surrogate’s Court guardianship proceeding, determined the principals underlying Matter of Michael B, 80 NY2d 299, a custody case, should apply to this action to determine which parent should be appointed guardian of their developmentally disabled son, Joseph J D II, as he turned 18. Because new evidence was brought to light after the hearing, the record is no longer sufficient and a new hearing was ordered:

These appeals present us with the narrow question of whether a rule set forth by the Court of Appeals in Matter of Michael B. (80 NY2d 299)—that an appellate court may remit a child custody matter for a new hearing if subsequent developments reflect that the record has become insufficient to determine the issues presented—may be extended to this appeal from a Surrogate’s Court decree determining a guardianship contest between the parents of an adult with a developmental disability within the meaning of article 17-A of the Surrogate’s Court Procedure Act. In light of certain commonalities between this dispute and a custody dispute, including a focus on the best interest of the individual who is the subject of the proceedings, we conclude that the rule and underlying rationale set forth in Matter of Michael B. is equally applicable here. Thus, in this proceeding pursuant to Surrogate’s Court Procedure Act article 17-A, we will consider new facts and allegations brought to our attention by the parties for the limited purpose of ascertaining whether the record before us is sufficient make a best interest determination, which is the same standard applied in appeals involving child custody. Upon doing so, we find that a new hearing is warranted because the record is no longer sufficient to determine what, at this juncture, is in the best interest of Joseph J. D. II. Matter of Joseph J.D. (Robert B.D.), 2024 NY Slip Op 02813, Second Det 5-22-24

Practice Point: The custody-related principals underlying Matter of Michael B, 80 NY2d 299, were applied to this Surrogate’s Court guardianship proceeding where both parents sought to be appointed guardian of their developmentally disabled son as he turned 18. Because new evidence came to light rendering the record inadequate, a new hearing was ordered.

 

, ,

EVIDENCE FATHER POSSESSED COCAINE WITH INTENT TO SELL WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT A NEGLECT FINDING; THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE FATHER USED DRUGS, EXPOSED THE CHILDREN TO DRUG-DEALING, OR STORED THE DRUGS WHERE THE CHILDREN COULD ACCESS THEM (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the evidence that father possessed four ounces of cocaine did not support the neglect finding. There was no evidence the children were exposed to drug-dealing and the drugs were stored above where the children could access them:

Family Court’s finding that the father neglected the children was not supported by a preponderance of the evidence … . … [Father’s] intent to sell these illicit drugs was insufficient, without more, to warrant a finding of neglect. The record … contained no evidence establishing that the father engaged in drug transactions within the house or that he otherwise exposed the children to drug-trafficking activities … . Nor was there evidence adduced at the hearing as to whether the father regularly engaged in the sale of drugs, or the manner in which he intended to sell the cocaine. Moreover, although the officers discovered the cocaine within the father’s bedroom closet, it was located on a five- or six-foot-high shelf and was otherwise stored in a manner that was not readily accessible to the children … . Finally, there was no indication in the record that the father ever used cocaine or any other illicit drugs. Absent evidence that the father’s conduct caused the requisite harm to the children or otherwise placed them in imminent danger of such harm, the court should not have found that he neglected them … . Matter of Jefferson C.-A. (Carlos T.-F.), 2024 NY Slip Op 02701, Second Dept 5-15-24

Practice Point: Storing four ounces of cocaine in a closet where the children could not access it, without more, is not sufficient for a neglect finding against father. Although there was evidence father intended to sell the drugs, there was no evidence father used drugs or exposed the children to drug-dealing.

 

,

A STIPULATIION OF SETTLEMENT DOES NOT IMPOSE A DUTY UPON A PERSON NOT A PARTY TO THE STIPULATION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a person who was not a party to the stipulation of settlement in a divorce action (Kamaras) cannot be sued for an alleged violation of the stipulation:

The plaintiff opposed Kamaras’s motion for summary judgment, contending, among other things, that Kamaras knew of the stipulation and its terms and that Kamaras had a “duty” to “have [Chantal] execute the transfer documents to the marital property and return same to [Walner’s counsel].” … .

“‘A stipulation of settlement which is incorporated but not merged into a judgment of divorce is a contract subject to principles of contract construction and interpretation'” … . “It is well-settled law that parties to a contract cannot, under its terms, impose any liability upon a stranger to that contract” … . “One cannot be held liable under a contract to which he or she is not a party” … .

Here, Kamaras demonstrated his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him by demonstrating that he was not a party to the stipulation and had not assumed any obligations under the stipulation … . Tema v Tema, 2024 NY Slip Op 02720, Second Dept 5-15-24

Practice Point: Even if a person is aware of the terms of a stipulation of settlement, if that person is not a party to the stipulation, the stipulation does not impose a duty to act on them.

 

, ,

THE CHILD’S FOSTER PARENTS WERE PERSONS LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CARE OF THE CHILD AND WERE ENTITLED TO A HEARING BEFORE THE CHILD WAS REMOVED FROM THEIR CARE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the foster parents, as persons legally responsible for the care of the child, were entitled to a hearing before the child was removed from their care:

Family Court Act § 1028(a) provides that “[u]pon the application of the parent or other person legally responsible for the care of a child temporarily removed under this part . . . , the court shall hold a hearing to determine whether the child should be returned,” with two exceptions not relevant here … . Family Court Act § 1028(a) further provides that “[e]xcept for good cause shown, such hearing shall be held within three court days of the application and shall not be adjourned” … .

The phrase “person legally responsible” “includes the child’s custodian, guardian, [or] any other person responsible for the child’s care at the relevant time” … . “The Court of Appeals, in interpreting Family Court Act § 1012(g), has held that ‘the common thread running through the various categories of persons legally responsible for a child’s care is that these persons serve as the functional equivalent of parents'” … . Further, “a person may act as the functional equivalent of a parent even though that person assumes temporary care or custody of a child,” as long as “the care given the child [is] analogous to parenting and occur[s] in a household or ‘family’ setting” … . “Factors to be considered in determining whether an applicant is a person legally responsible for the care of a child include ‘(1) the frequency and nature of the contact, (2) the nature and extent of the control exercised by the [applicant] over the child’s environment, (3) the duration of the [applicant’s] contact with the child, and (4) the [applicant’s] relationship to the child’s parent(s)'” … .

Here, the evidence in the record was sufficient to support a determination that the foster parents were persons legally responsible for the care of the child. The evidence demonstrated that the child, eight years old at the time of the foster parents’ application, had been under the foster parents’ care for most of his life. . Matter of Samson R. (Christopher R.), 2024 NY Slip Op 02710, Second Dept 5-15-24

Practice Point: Here the foster parents had cared for the eight-year-old for most of his life. They were “persons legally responsible for the care of the child” and therefore were entitled to a hearing before removal of the child.

 

, , ,

MOTHER’S INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS AND EVASIVE TESTIMONY DID NOT AMOUNT TO “FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT” WARRANTING THE AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES AS A SANCTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined Family Court should not have awarded petitioner attorney’s fees as a sanction against mother based on mother’s testimony in the proceedings: Mother’s conduct was not “frivolous” within the meaning of 22 NYCRR 131-1.1(a):

Pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1(a), the court is authorized to award a party in a civil action “reasonable attorney’s fees . . . resulting from frivolous conduct.” Conduct is frivolous if “(1) it is completely without merit in law and cannot be supported by a reasonable argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law; (2) it is undertaken primarily to delay or prolong the resolution of the litigation, or to harass or maliciously injure another; or (3) it asserts material factual statements that are false” … . “A party seeking the imposition of a sanction or an award of an attorney’s fee pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1(c) has the burden of demonstrating that the conduct of the opposing party was frivolous within the meaning of the rule” … .

Here, the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the mother engaged in frivolous conduct within the meaning of the rule. Contrary to the Family Court’s determination, the mother’s inconsistent statements and evasive testimony were not frivolous conduct within the meaning of 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 … . Matter of Edwin C. v Fenny C., 2024 NY Slip Op 02700,, Second Dept 5-15-24

Practice Point: Here in this Family Court proceeding petitioner was awarded attorney’s fees as a sanction pursuant to 22 NYCRR 131-1.1(a) based on mother’s “inconsistent statements” and “evasive testimony.” Mother’s conduct was not “frivolous” within the meaning of 22 NYCRR 131-1.1(a). The petition should not have been granted.

 

, , ,

FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE SUSPENDED FATHER’S VISITATION WITHOUT MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT, MATTER REMITTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court, determined Family Court should not have suspended father’s visitation without making findings of fact:

The father … contends that the court failed to make any factual findings whatsoever to support the determination to suspend the father’s visitation with the child, and that the matter should be remitted to allow the court to make such findings. We agree. It is “well established that the court is obligated ‘to set forth those facts essential to its decision’ ” … . Here, the court completely failed to follow that well-established rule when it failed to issue any factual findings to support its determination … , either with respect to whether there had been a change in circumstances … or the relevant factors that it considered in making a best interests of the child determination … . “Effective appellate review, whatever the case but especially in child visitation, custody or neglect proceedings, requires that appropriate factual findings be made by the trial court—the court best able to measure the credibility of the witnesses” … . We therefore reverse the amended order and remit the matter to Family Court to make a determination on the petition including specific findings as to a change in circumstances and the best interests of the child, following an additional hearing if necessary … . Matter of Miller v Boyden, 2024 NY Slip Op 02648, Fourth Dept 5-10-24

Practice Point: Here Family Court should not have suspended father’s visitation without making findings of fact because appellate review is impossible; matter remitted.

 

, ,

SUPREME COURT DID NOT CITE ANY “EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES” TO JUSTIFY ITS SUA-SPONTE DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT IN THIS DIVORCE ACTION (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this divorce action, determined there was no demonstration of “extraordinary circumstances” to justify Supreme Court’s sua sponte dismissal of the complaint:

“A court’s power to dismiss a [complaint], sua sponte, is to be used sparingly, and only when extraordinary circumstances exist to warrant dismissal” … . Here, the Supreme Court did not identify any extraordinary circumstances warranting sua sponte dismissal of the complaint … . The plaintiff moved, inter alia, to consolidate custody and family offense proceedings that were pending in the Family Court, Queens County, and the Family Court, Kings County, with the instant action. There was no motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety or to change venue before the court … . Ivashchenko v Borukhov, 2024 NY Slip Op 02526, Second Dept 5-8-24

Practice Point: This decision illustrates the appellate-courts’ discomfort with sua sponte dismissals of complaints (dismissal in the absence of a motion requesting it).

 

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