You are here: / Family Law

THE WIFE’S TEMPORARY MAINTENANCE ARREARS SHOULD HAVE BEEN CALCULATED FROM THE DATE OF THE WIFE’S APPLICATION FOR MAINTENANCE, NOT THE PRIOR DATE WHEN SHE BECAME UNEMPLOYED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the temporary maintenance awarded the wife should have commenced on the date of her application for temporary maintenance, not the prior date when she became unemployed:

We … agree with the husband that Supreme Court erred in ordering him to pay arrears retroactive to the wife’s date of unemployment, rather than the date of her application for temporary maintenance. The submissions demonstrated that the wife lost her job and the court made temporary maintenance retroactive to that date, November 26, 2019, yet the wife did not file her motion seeking temporary maintenance until April 2020. As applications for pendente lite relief are to be calculated from the date of the application …, the court’s calculation of arrears from the date of the wife’s unemployment was error. Carter v Fairchild-Carter, 2021 NY Slip Op 06594, Third Dept 11-24-21

 

,

IN THIS POST-DIVORCE ACTION, THE PROCEEDS OF THE SALE OF THE PARTIES’ REAL PROPERTY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT A FULL EVIDENTIARY HEARING (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the court should have conducted a hearing before distributing the proceeds of the sale of the parties’ farm in this post-divorce action:

… [T]he court erred in deciding the value of plaintiff’s credits without a full evidentiary hearing permitting the parties to offer proof of valuation … . Plaintiff offered no direct proof of the value of the relevant assets, and defendant was not afforded an opportunity to cross-examine the court-appointed appraiser or review the appraisals … . The court’s decision also failed to articulate the factors it considered or the reasons for its determination to partially grant certain credits to plaintiff and deny others … . … [W]e remit the matter to Supreme Court for a hearing and appropriate findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect to the parties’ entitlement to credits. Edwards v Edwards, 2021 NY Slip Op 06504, Fourth Dept 11-19-21

 

MOTHER TIMELY REVOKED HER EXTRA-JUDICIAL SURRENDER OF HER CHILD FOR ADOPTION; FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAE DENIED MOTHER’S MOTION TO DEEM THE SURRENDER A NULLITY AND SHOULD NOT HAVE CONDUCTED A BEST INTERESTS HEARING (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court, determined mother properly revoked her extra-judicial surrender of the child for adoption and Family Court should not have denied mother’s motion to deem the surrender a nullity and should not have conducted a best interests hearing:

… [T]he plain language of Social Services Law § 383-c (6) (a) mandates that a timely revocation shall render the extra-judicial surrender a nullity and that the child shall be returned to the care and custody of the authorized agency, and the statute contains no language providing for a best interests hearing in the event of such a timely revocation … . * * *

… [T]he court here had no statutory basis for refusing to deem the surrender a nullity, denying the birth mother’s motion, and instead conducting a best interests hearing. Matter of Tony S.H. (Katrina F.), 2021 NY Slip Op 06238, Fourth Dept 11-12-21

 

,

FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RETURNED THE CHILD TO THE PARENTS’ CUSTODY AFTER THE CHILD HAD BEEN TEMPORARILY REMOVED BECAUSE OF APPARENT ABUSE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the parents’ application for the return of their child after a temporary removal pursuant to Family Court Act article 10 should not have been granted:

“An application pursuant to Family Court Act § 1028(a) for the return of a child who has been temporarily removed shall be granted unless the court finds that ‘the return presents an imminent risk to the child’s life or health'” … . * * *

The petitioner established a prima facie case of child abuse against the parents by presenting evidence that injuries Ezara sustained would not ordinarily occur absent an act or omission of the caregiver, and that the parents were the caregivers of Ezara during the relevant time period … . Specifically, the petitioner’s expert in child abuse pediatrics testified that the then two-month-old Ezara had multiple rib fractures, which appeared to have been sustained at different times, as well as fractures in his legs and a laceration of his spleen, and further testified within a reasonable degree of medical certainty that these injuries were caused by non-accidental trauma. The parents failed to rebut the presumption of culpability with a reasonable and adequate explanation for Ezara’s injuries … . Further, the petitioner established that the parents demonstrated such an impaired level of parental judgment with respect to Ezara so as to create a substantial risk of harm to any child in their care … . Matter of Chase P. (Maureen Q.), 2021 NY Slip Op 06173, Second Dept 11-10-21

 

, ,

THE JUDGE DID NOT MAKE THE REQUIRED INQUIRY RE: DEFENDANT’S WAIVER OF THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL IN THIS CUSTODY PROCEEDING BEFORE ALLOWING DEFENDANT TO PROCEED WITHOUT AN ATTORNEY; NEW HEARING ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court and ordering a new custody hearing, determined the judge did not make the required inquiry before allowing defendant to waiver her right to counsel:

The parent of any child seeking custody or contesting the substantial infringement of his or her right to custody of such child must be advised “before proceeding that he or she has the right to be represented by counsel of his or her own choosing, of the right to have an adjournment to confer with counsel, and of the right to have counsel assigned by the court in any case where he or she is financially unable to obtain the same” (Family Ct Act § 262[a][v]; see Judiciary Law § 35[8] …). A party may waive the right to counsel, provided he or she makes a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver of that right … . Here, the Supreme Court failed to conduct the requisite inquiry before allowing the defendant to proceed pro se with regard to the hearing and determination of the defendant’s motions to modify and/or vacate the custody order … . Wondemagegehu v Edem, 2021 NY Slip Op 06213, Second Dept 11-10-21

 

,

THE INSTRUCTION THAT MOTHER NOT “EXPOSE” THE CHILD TO ACTIVITIES NOT IN KEEPING WITH THE CHILD’S FAITH, WHICH IMPLICITLY REQUIRED THAT THE CHILD NOT BE “EXPOSED” TO MOTHER’S LGBTQ IDENTITY, IS NOT ENFORCEABLE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the instruction that mother not “expose” the child to activities not in keeping with religious requirements during periods of her parental access was unenforceable. Mother identified as a member of the LGBTQ community, and considered herself an Orthodox Jew:

… [A] court oversteps constitutional limitations when it purports to compel a parent to adopt a particular religious lifestyle. “… ‘[I]t is beyond dispute that, at a minimum, the Constitution guarantees that government may not coerce anyone to support or participate in religion or its exercise'” … . A religious upbringing provision “should not, and cannot, be enforced to the extent that it violates a parent’s legitimate due process right to express oneself and live freely” … . Thus, where the effect of a religious upbringing provision is to compel a parent to himself or herself practice a religion, rather than merely directing the parent to provide the child with a religious upbringing, the provision must be stricken … .

… [T]he challenged restriction does not expressly require the plaintiff to herself comply with the rules of the child’s Orthodox Jewish Chasidic faith during periods of parental access. … [T]he provision in forbidding her to “expose” the child to any activities which violate the child’s Orthodox Jewish Chasidic faith has the same effect … . The only way for the plaintiff to ensure her compliance with the restriction is for her to comply with all religious requirements of the child’s faith during her periods of parental access, lest she “expose” the child to activities not in keeping with those religious requirements. … The defendant [father] was especially concerned that the child would be exposed to people involved in a “gay lifestyle” … . Such restrictions on a parent’s ability to “express oneself and live freely” go beyond requiring a noncustodial parent to support and enable the child’s religious practices, and impermissibly infringe on the noncustodial parent’s rights … . Weichman v Weichman, 2021 NY Slip Op 06211, Second Dept 11-10-21

 

,

AWARDING A PARENT DECISION-MAKING AUTHORITY FOR ANY MAJOR CHILD-RELATED ISSUE IS TANTAMOUNT TO MODIFYING A CUSTODY ARRANGEMENT TO AWARD SOLE CUSTODY TO THE DECISION-MAKING PARENT; SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE HELD A HEARING (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the custody arrangement should not have been modified in the absence of a hearing. The court noted that the award of decision-making authority for any major child-related issue on which the parties cannot agree is tantamount to the award of sole custody:

The Supreme Court erred by, in effect, granting, without a hearing, that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to modify the parties’ stipulation of settlement and judgment of divorce so as to award her sole legal custody of the child to the extent of awarding her final decision-making authority as to any major child-related issue about which the parties could not agree, and denying that branch of the plaintiff’s cross motion which was to modify the stipulation of settlement and judgment of divorce so as to award him sole legal custody. “‘[A] court may grant relief that is warranted by the facts plainly appearing on the papers on both sides, if the relief granted is not too dramatically unlike the relief sought, the proof offered supports it, and there is no prejudice to any party'” … . … There can be no question that the award of final decision-making authority is not “dramatically unlike” the relief requested, as decision making is part and parcel to legal custody. … [T]he court erred in granting this award without a hearing. The court’s determination that “neither party has established change in circumstances warranting an award of sole custody to either parent” is incongruous with the court’s determination to award the defendant final decision-making authority. Since it appears that the court believed that the parties made an evidentiary showing of a change in circumstances demonstrating a need for a change of decision-making authority to ensure the child’s best interests, a hearing on that issue was required … .  Trazzera v Trazzera, 2021 NY Slip Op 06208, Second Dept 11-10-21

 

, , , ,

THE ISSUE WHETHER THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENT THAT OBJECTIONS TO CHILD SUPPORT ORDERS BE RULED ON WITHIN 15 DAYS WAS CONSIDERED ON APPEAL AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE; THE 15-DAY RULE IS MANDATORY AND MUST BE ENFORCED; THE MOTHER WAS ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES UNDER THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT BECAUSE HER ACTION WAS THE CATALYST FOR THIS DECISION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Family Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mazzarelli, determined: (1) the issue whether objections to child support rulings must be ruled on within 15 days (Family Court Act 439(a)) will be considered on appeal as an exception to the mootness doctrine; (2) under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) (CPLR 8600, et seq) mother-petitioner was entitled to attorney’s fees because her action served as a catalyst to this decision enforcing the 15-day rule:

The mother has established that this is not the first time in this case that the issue has arisen. Further, the issue is not likely to be resolved without application of the exception, because the Family Court can so easily obviate it by issuing a decision on the objections, albeit after the expiration of the 15 days. Courts have applied the exception under similar circumstances … . * * *

The statute is mandatory insofar as it plainly states that the court “shall,” within 15 days of an objection to a support award being fully submitted, issue a ruling on it … . * * *

Because the CAJ [Chief Administrative Judge, NYC Family Court] responded to the mother’s petition by assigning a Family Court judge to rule on her objections, and because the CAJ offers no substantial justification for not having enforced Family Court Act § 439(e) before the petition was filed, the matter should be remanded for an assessment of the mother’s attorneys’ fees under the State EAJA. Matter of Liu v Ruiz, 2021 NY Slip Op 06089, First Dept 11-9-21

 

IN THIS DIVORCE ACTION, HUSBAND WAS NOT ENTITLED TO CREDIT FOR MORTGAGE PAYMENTS MADE BEFORE THE TERMINATION OF THE MARRIAGE WAS CONTEMPLATED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff husband in this divorce action should not have been awarded credit for mortgage payments made before terminating the marriage was contemplated:

Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in awarding the plaintiff a credit in the sum of $34,000 for payments he made toward the mortgage on the marital residence. Where a party has paid the other party’s share of what proves to be marital debt during the pendency of the action, including payments toward the mortgage on the marital residence, reimbursement is required … . However, “[a]s a general rule, where the payments are made before either party is anticipating the end of the marriage, . . . courts should not look back and try to compensate for the fact that the net effect of the payments may, in some cases, have resulted in the reduction of marital assets” … . Here, the plaintiff’s payments toward the mortgage, which was satisfied in October 2017, were made prior to the commencement of this action, and thus, the plaintiff is not entitled to a credit for those payments. Cuomo v Moss, 2021 NY Slip Op 05945, Second Dept 11-3-21

 

, ,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED THE SALE OF THE MARITAL RESIDENCE; HUSBAND AND WIFE HAD NOT AGREED ON THE MATERIAL TERMS OF THE SALE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Rodriguez, over a two justice dissent, determined the wife did not consent to the sale of the marital residence. There was never a meeting of the minds. Therefore Supreme Court should not have ordered the sale:

The husband’s proposed order contained many of the conditions imposed by Supreme Court in the order on appeal, including scheduled mandatory price reductions and required acceptance of certain offers. The wife’s proposed counter order, on the other hand, contained no proposed initial list price, no procedure for list price reduction or reevaluation, and no required acceptance of offers at any price level. As to a potential sale, the wife’s proposed counter order provided that the property “should either be listed for sale or the Wife shall advise the Husband in writing that she intends to buy-out his interest in the Townhouse” and, further, that “[t]he Townhouse will only be sold under the terms of an agreed Stipulation between the parties.”

The order on appeal reflects that Supreme Court adopted the husband’s order with minimal revisions, essentially rejecting the wife’s preconditions to the sale of the townhouse and imposing its own additional conditions. … [E]ven assuming arguendo that the dissent is correct that the wife initially agreed to the sale of the townhouse, she revoked her consent because the parties were unable to agree on the material terms of the sale … . Taglioni v Garcia, 2021 NY Slip Op 05936, First Dept 10-28-21

 

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