You are here: / Family Law
,

ALTHOUGH IT WAS A VERY CLOSE CASE, THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT A CHANGE IN CUSTODY SUCH THAT THE COUPLE’S SON, WHO HAS BEEN DIAGNOSED WITH AUTISM, WOULD RELOCATE WITH FATHER TO MASSACHUSETTS, DESPITE FATHER’S BEING MORE FINANCIALLY SECURE THAN MOTHER; FAMILY COURT DID NOT GIVE PROPER WEIGHT TO THE SON’S WISHES (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined, in a very close case where both parents love and want the best for their children (who have been diagnosed with autism), father did not demonstrate a sound basis for modifying the custody arrangement to allow relocation with his son to Massachusetts:

… [I]t is clear that the son is very strongly bonded to the mother. Indeed, he has lived with the mother for the last six years since the father moved to Massachusetts, except for short periods of visitation with the father. Moreover, the son has had very little visitation with the father since the 2019 holiday season due largely to the COVID-19 pandemic. Additionally, although the father cites the living conditions at the mother’s home as the motivation for initially seeking custody, we find this questionable given that he testified that the condition of the mother’s home has long been problematic and that, despite this, he relocated to Massachusetts and left both children in her care. Although … issues with the hot water heater were no doubt problematic, that matter was remedied prior to trial. Even more troubling, however, is the father’s strong opposition to the son changing schools because the son has difficulty with change, yet he feels it is in the son’s best interests to relocate him to Massachusetts away from the mother and the life he has established with her. Although relocation would certainly enhance the son’s life, as his living conditions would improve due to the father being more financially secure, this is only one factor in our analysis … . Finally, although not dispositive, given the advanced age of the son [born 2005], as well as testimony regarding how intelligent he is, we find that Family Court did not give proper weight to his wishes … . Matter of Daniel G. v Marie H., 2021 NY Slip Op 04178, Third Dept 7-1-21

 

MOTHER’S REFUSING TO SIGN MEDICAL CONSENT FORMS FOR PSYCHIATRIC TREATMENT OF HER CHILD DID NOT CONSTITUTE NEGLECT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) did not demonstrate mother had neglected the child by refusing to sign medical consent forms which resulted in the child being discharged from the psychiatric care at the Richmond University Medical Center (RUMC):

ACS failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the mother neglected the child. ACS did not establish that the mother’s failure to sign the admissions paperwork for the child’s stay at RUMC, or her failure to consent to the child being given a drug known as Risperdal, impaired, or caused imminent risk of impairment of, the child’s physical, mental, or emotional condition. Contrary to the allegation in the petition, the child’s medical records showed that she was discharged from RUMC because her condition had stabilized and she did not appear to be a threat to herself or others. Moreover, the mother agreed with the recommendation that the child receive follow-up outpatient care, and at the time that the child was discharged, the mother had two such appointments scheduled. As to the mother’s failure to consent to the child being given Risperdal, the medical records showed that, despite not being given this medication, the child’s condition stabilized during her hospitalization such that she was able to be released safely for outpatient treatment. ACS presented no evidence that outpatient treatment without the use of Risperdal was not “an acceptable course of treatment in light of all of the surrounding circumstances” … . Matter of Nabil H. A. (Vinda F.), 2021 NY Slip Op 04129, Second Dept 6-30-21

 

, , ,

PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON A TEMPORARY ORDER OF PROTECTION (TOP) WHICH BARRED HER FROM HER OWN APARTMENT WHERE HER CHILDREN LIVED; THE APPEAL WAS HEARD AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Webber, reversing Criminal Court, determined the mandamus action against  a Criminal Court judge seeking a hearing on a temporary order of protection (TOP) should have been granted. The First Department found that the matter qualified as an exception to the mootness doctrine and heard the appeal despite the dismissal of the underlying criminal action. Petitioner was charged with assaulting a man with whom she lived in her apartment. The TOP barred her from her own apartment where her children resided:

We find that the Criminal Court’s initial failure to hold an evidentiary hearing in accordance with petitioner’s due process rights after being informed that petitioner might suffer the deprivation of a significant liberty or property interest upon issuance of the TOP falls within the exception to the mootness doctrine: “(1)[there is] a likelihood of repetition, either between the parties or among other members of the public; (2) [it involves] a phenomenon typically evading review; and (3) [there is] a showing of significant or important questions not previously passed on, i.e., substantial and novel issues” … . Matter of Crawford v Ally, 2021 NY Slip Op 04082, First Dept 6-24-21

 

, ,

THE HARASSMENT-RELATED SPEECH PROHIBITIONS IN THE ORDER OF PROTECTION DID NOT VIOLATE THE FIRST AMENDMENT BUT THE PROVISION PROHIBITING RESPONDENT FROM DISCSUSSING THE PETITIONER OR THE FAMILY OFFENSE PROCEEDING WAS STRUCK FROM THE ORDER OF PROTECTION AS UNNECESSARY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department affirmed the finding respondent committed the family offense of harassment by sending email about petitioner’s personal matters to 53 people. Although the harassment prohibitions in the order of protection did not violate the Firs Amendment, the provision in the order of protection which prohibited respondent from discussing the petitioner or the proceedings was struck as unnecessary:

Respondent contends that the provision of the order prohibiting him from discussing petitioner or the case with anyone familiar with petitioner violated his First Amendment right to freedom of speech. To be sure, respondent’s repeatedly sending petitioner emails articulating his unwanted opinions about her, her mother and their family dynamic or making petitioner aware of the emails he sent to several third parties broadcasting those opinions by blind-copying her on those messages is not protected by the First Amendment, because those repeated and unwanted communications serve no legitimate purpose … . However, because the harassment is adequately addressed by the provision that respondent stay away from petitioner and not contact her, we delete the prohibition against his discussing petitioner or the proceeding … . Matter of Sophia M. v James M., 2021 NY Slip Op 03992, First Dept 6-22-21

 

HUSBAND’S PROCEEDS FROM THE SALE OF STOCK DID NOT LOSE THEIR SEPARATE-PROPERTY CHARACTER WHEN THEY WERE BRIEFLY PLACED IN THE PARTIES’ JOINT BANK ACCOUNT BEFORE BEING USED FOR THE DOWNPAYMENT FOR THE MARITAL RESIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined funds from the husband’s sale of stock were his separate property, even though the funds were briefly placed in a joint account before using them for the down payment on the marital residence:

… [D]efendant offered uncontroverted testimony, supported by documentary evidence, that he placed funds acquired from the sale of stocks he had purchased prior to the marriage into the parties’ joint bank account because it was his only checking account and he could not access the funds directly from the platform from which he sold the stock … . The funds remained in the account for only a matter of weeks before defendant withdrew a majority of them to pay a portion of the down payment for the marital home … . Thus, defendant established that the account was used “only as a conduit” for the sale of his stock … . The funds therefore maintained their character as separate property, and defendant is entitled to a credit for his portion of the down payment … . LaPoint v Claypoole, 2021 NY Slip Op 03947, Fourth Dept 6-17-21

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH THE CHILD-SUPPORT CONTEMPT PROCEEDING WAS IN SUPREME COURT, NOT FAMILY COURT, PLAINTIFF HAD A RIGHT TO COUNSEL UNDER THE JUDICIARY LAW; PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE BECAUSE NO MEDICAL EVIDENCE WAS PRESENTED TO SUPPORT PLAINTIFF’S TESTIMONY HE WAS UNABLE TO WORK (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, after noting plaintiff was entitled to counsel under Judiciary Law 35 (8) in this child-support contempt proceeding in Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s counsel was ineffective. Plaintiff testified he could not meet his child-support obligations because of medical problems, but counsel did not present any medical evidence:

The plaintiff was denied effective assistance of counsel in connection with that branch of the defendant’s cross motion which was to hold him in contempt for wilful violation of the 2013 order. Under Judiciary Law § 35(8), a person has the right to the assistance of counsel in any matter before the Supreme Court, under circumstances whereby, if such proceeding was pending in the Family Court, such court would be required, by section 262 of the Family Court Act, to appoint counsel, such as the matter here in which the defendant sought to hold the plaintiff in contempt for wilful violation of the 2013 [child-support] order and sought his incarceration (see Judiciary Law § 35[8]; Family Ct Act § 262). The standard for effective assistance of counsel in such cases is whether, viewed in its totality, there was meaningful representation … . Here, the plaintiff’s attorney failed to present any medical evidence, whether in the form of admissible medical records or testimony of medical witnesses, to support the plaintiff’s defense that his failure to pay child support in accordance with the 2013 order was not wilful, but rather due to his medical condition which rendered him unable to work. Winter v Winter, 2021 NY Slip Op 03865, Second Dept 6-16-21

 

,

GRANDMOTHER SHOULD HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED OF HER RIGHT TO COUNSEL IN THIS CUSTODY CASE; MATTER SENT BACK TO FAMILY COURT TO DETERMINE WHETHER GRANDMOTHER WAS ELIGIBLE FOR ASSIGNED COUNSEL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined grandmother should have been notified of her right to counsel in this custody case. But the question remains whether grandmother would have qualified (financially) for assigned counsel. The matter was sent back to Family Court to rule on grandmother’s eligibility for assigned counsel:

We find merit to the grandmother’s argument that she was potentially eligible for the assignment of counsel at the March 2017 appearance and that Family Court erred in failing to advise her of that right. The purpose of providing counsel to certain persons [*3]involved in Family Court proceedings is to provide protection against “infringements of fundamental interests and rights” (Family Ct Act § 261). The grandmother was listed as a respondent in the mother’s modification petition brought under Family Ct Act article 6, part 3 … , which sought sole legal and primary physical custody of the child. As of the initial appearance on that petition in March 2017, the grandmother jointly shared “secondary legal custody” with the mother. Accordingly, the mother’s request for sole legal custody of the child, if granted, had the potential to alter the grandmother’s custodial rights. We are mindful that the mother subsequently withdrew her request for custody and instead advocated for the child’s placement with the grandmother. However, she did not do so until the fact-finding hearing, nearly four months after the March 2017 appearance. Family Ct Act § 262 (a) requires the court to advise an eligible person of the right to counsel “[w]hen such person first appears in court” … . As the grandmother was potentially eligible for assigned counsel under Family Ct Act § 262 (a), upon a showing of the required financial circumstances, the court was obligated to advise her of that right at the March 2017 appearance … . Matter of Renee S. v Heather U., 2021 NY Slip Op 03635, Third Dept 6-10-21

 

, ,

IN DETERMINING WHETHER A PRIMA FACIE CASE HAS BEEN MADE OUT IN A FAMILY OFFENSE PROCEEDING, CREDIBILITY IS IRRELEVANT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the motion to dismiss the family offense petition for failure to make out a prima facie case should not have been granted, noting that the credibility of the evidence is not a factor to be considered at that stage:

In a family offense proceeding, the petitioner has the burden of establishing that the charged conduct was committed as alleged in the petition by a fair preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act § 832 … ). “‘In determining a motion to dismiss for failure to establish a prima facie case, the evidence must be accepted as true and given the benefit of every reasonable inference which may be drawn therefrom . . . The question of credibility is irrelevant, and should not be considered'” ). Here, the Family Court failed to properly apply this standard. Viewing the petitioner’s evidence in the light most favorable to her, and accepting the evidence as true, it established a prima facie case … . Matter of Prince v Ford, 2021 NY Slip Op 03591, Second Dept 6-9-21

 

,

THE ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, IN A BRIEF TO THE APPELLATE COURT, ALERTED THE COURT TO NEW INFORMATION RELEVANT TO THE CUSTODY RULING BY FAMILY COURT; THE MATTER WAS REMITTED FOR A REOPENED HEARING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department sent the matter back to Family Court for a reopened custody hearing after the attorney for the child alerted the court to new relevant information:

… [T]he attorney for the child, in the brief submitted to this Court on the child’s behalf, has brought to this Court’s attention certain alleged new developments including that shortly after the child began living with the father, the child reported that the father told her that the mother was evil, and the child stated that she no longer wanted to see the mother at all. “As the Court of Appeals has recognized, changed circumstances may have particular significance in child custody matters and may render the record on appeal insufficient to review whether a child custody determination is still in the best interests of the children” … . In light of the alleged new developments brought to this Court’s attention by the attorney for the child, the record is no longer sufficient to determine which arrangement is in the best interests of the child … .

… [W]e remit the matter to the Family Court … for a reopened hearing at which the alleged new facts shall be considered, and a new custody determination thereafter. In so doing, we express no opinion as to the appropriate determination. Matter of Magana v Delph, 2021 NY Slip Op 03589, Second Dept 6-9-21

 

,

THE EVIDENCE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE DEVELOPMENT OF A PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RAYMOND F AND THE CHILD; THEREFORE RAYMOND F’S REQUEST FOR A GENETIC MARKER TEST SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined Raymond F’s request for a genetic marker test should not have been denied. The evidence did not demonstrate a parent-child relationship such that Raymond F should be equitably estopped from denying paternity:

The application of the doctrine of equitable estoppel does not involve the equities between adult participants to the paternity proceedings … . “Rather, in the context of a paternity proceeding, it is the child’s justifiable reliance on a representation of paternity that is considered and, therefore, the doctrine of equitable estoppel will be applied only where its use furthers the best interests of the subject child” … . …

The trial testimony established that the mother and Trini G., the mother’s boyfriend with whom she and her children lived for nine years (from the time the child was two to three months old), “co-parented” all of the children by contributing financially to their care and feeding, bathing and playing with them. Trini G. referred to the child as “stepson” and the child called him “daddy.” The record established that Reymond F. had no contact with the child since birth, except during sporadic visits between Reymond F. and his two older children. Reymond F. testified that he did not do “anything” with the child during these visits, was not called “dad” and did not call the child “son.” He further testified that he never called the child on the phone, never gave him gifts and never checked on his educational or medical issues. The mother testified that, while she did not encourage the child to have a relationship with Reymond F., the child knew that Reymond F. was his biological father. Matter of Montgomery County Dept. of Social Servs. v Trini G., 2021 NY Slip Op 03489, Third Dept 6-3-21

 

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