You are here: / Family Law
, , ,

THE ESTATE OF A PARTY TO A SEPARATION AGREEMENT MAY SEEK A DOWNWARD MODIFICATION OF THE AGREED MAINTENANCE PAYMENTS; THE DISSENT ARGUED ONLY THE PARTY, NOT THE ESTATE OF THE PARTY, CAN SEEK A DOWNWARD MODIFICATION AND THE MATTER SHOULD BE HANDLED IN PROBATE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a dissent, determined that the estate of a party to a separation agreement that was merged but not incorporated into a judgment of divorce could seek a downward modification of the maintenance payments. The dissent argued only the party to the agreement, not the estate of the party, could seek a downward modification based on extreme hardship:

FROM THE DISSENT:

… [T]his Court recently held that plaintiff and defendant’s decedent entered into a Separation and Property Settlement Agreement (settlement agreement), which was incorporated but not merged into a judgment of divorce, whereby decedent agreed to pay lifetime maintenance to plaintiff that continued even in the event of decedent’s death … . * * *

Pursuant to the Domestic Relations Law, “[w]here . . . [a separation agreement] remains in force, no modification of an order or judgment incorporating the terms of said agreement shall be made as to maintenance without a showing of extreme hardship on either party” (§ 236 [B] [9] [b] [1] …). A modification of maintenance based on extreme hardship is thus, personal to the parties who contracted as to the amount of maintenance in the separation agreement and, as noted, a modification of that amount has only been awarded in situations involving personal hardships. In my view, an “estate” can never establish a personal hardship and thus, is never entitled to a downward modification of maintenance. While defendant in this case submitted evidence that the continued payment of the maintenance obligation would pose a hardship on the estate, such a hardship is not upon any party to the settlement agreement. Indeed, it is only a hardship upon the beneficiaries of decedent’s estate who wish to maximize their inheritance. In my view, any difficulty in the estate’s ability to pay the amount of lifetime maintenance agreed to by decedent is an issue that should be raised by the estate in the probate court when determining the reserve funds to be set aside to satisfy the maintenance obligation. Gardner v Zammit, 2021 NY Slip Op 00707, Fourth Dept 2-5-21

 

, ,

A PLENARY ACTION WAS REQUIRED TO SET ASIDE THE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT WHICH WAS INCORPORATED BUT NOT MERGED INTO THE JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined Supreme Court did not have the authority to declare certain portions of the stipulation of settlement invalid. A plenary action was necessary:

… [A] plenary action was required to seek to set aside the stipulation of settlement, which was incorporated but not merged into the judgment of divorce … . There are exceptions to this general rule, such as where reformation of a separation agreement is sought to conform the agreement with the intent of the parties … , or where the matrimonial action is still pending and was not terminated with entry of a judgment … , or in certain circumstances where enforcement of child support is sought … . None of these exceptions are applicable here.

In view of the foregoing, those branches of the plaintiff’s cross motion which were to vacate the provisions of the stipulation of settlement concerning equitable distribution and maintenance should have been denied. Jagassar v Deonarine, 2021 NY Slip Op 00549, Second Dept 2-3-21

 

THE VIRGINIA DIVORCE DID NOT CHANGE THE PARTIES’ STATUS FROM TENANTS BY THE ENTIRETY TO TENANTS IN COMMON FOR THEIR NEW YORK MARITAL RESIDENCE; NEW YORK FOLLOWS THE “DIVISIBLE DIVORCE” DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined that the Virginia divorce did not affect the couple’s status as tenants by the entirety for the marital home n New York:

The plaintiff contends that the tenancy by the entirety dissolved by operation of law when the Virginia divorce decree was entered, and that the ownership interest in the subject property transformed from a tenancy by the entirety to a tenancy in common … . New York, however, follows the “divisible divorce” doctrine, pursuant to which the ex parte Virginia divorce decree, obtained without personal jurisdiction over the defendant, terminated the parties’ status as husband and wife, but had no effect on the defendant’s property rights … . In conformity with this doctrine, it is well established that an ex parte foreign divorce decree cannot divest the nonappearing spouse of his or her rights in a New York tenancy by the entirety … . Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the full faith and credit clause of the federal constitution requires only that New York recognize that the Virginia divorce decree dissolved the parties’ marital status … . Thus, the tenancy by the entirety in which the parties own their marital home has not been terminated. Bernhardt v Schneider, 2021 NY Slip Op 00407, Second Dept 1-27-21

 

,

THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE FINDING OF NEGLECT ON MOTHER’S PART (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined the evidence did not support a finding of neglect on the part of mother (respondent). Although mother’s husband (Bradley CC.) had been violent on two occasions, the children did not witness the incidents:

Respondent’s handling of the domestic abuse and Bradley CC.’s alcohol and substance misuse gave petitioner reasonable cause for concern. Indeed, the evidence established that respondent — a recovering heroin addict — was aware that Bradley CC. had a substance and alcohol abuse problem but failed to acknowledge — or minimized — the impact that such problem was having or could have on her and the children. Respondent admitted to coping with the circumstances by habitually using marihuana, but was resistant to treatment and mental health counseling and failed to recognize the problematic nature of her chosen coping mechanism, particularly given her history of addiction. Despite the concern that respondent was not dealing with the circumstances in a healthy manner, there was no evidence that she used marihuana in the presence of the children or that her usage had ever rendered her unable to care for the children … . While engaged with preventative services with petitioner, respondent seemingly understood the potential impact that Bradley CC.’s drinking could have on the children and agreed to a safety plan stating that he was not to be left alone to care for the children. … * * *

Respondent’s failings … do not rise to such a level to support the conclusion that her actions and inactions actually impaired the children’s physical, mental or emotional conditions or placed the children at imminent risk of such impairment … . Matter of Lexie CC. (Liane CC.), 2021 NY Slip Op 00342, Third Dept 1-21-21

 

, , ,

FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE REFUSED JURISDICTION OVER THIS CUSTODY AND NEGLECT PROCEEDING STEMMING FROM AN INCIDENT DURING A BRIEF VISIT TO TENNESSEE (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing Family Court and ordering new proceedings in front of a different judge, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Clark, determined Family Court completely mishandled this custody matter which involved neglect proceedings in Tennessee stemming from an incident during the family’s brief visit there. Family Court had refused to exercise jurisdiction over the matter on inconvenient-forum grounds. On appeal, all parties agreed Family Court had committed reversible errors:

… [T]here was no dispute that the children and their respective parents/custodian had lived in New York for at least six consecutive months prior to the April 2019 commencement of the neglect proceeding in Tennessee, thereby making New York the children’s home state … . Thus, pursuant to the UCCJEA, Family Court had jurisdiction over the neglect proceeding commenced in Tennessee … . * * *

The record irrefutably reflects that the children came into emergency care in Tennessee during a brief visit to the state and that, prior to entering care, they had not resided in Tennessee. The children’s respective parents/legal custodian reside in New York, as does a half sibling of one of the children. Roughly 850 miles separate the Tennessee court and Chemung County, and the parties have limited financial means to travel to Tennessee to participate in court proceedings or to visit with the children. Additionally, with the exception of DSS, which did not provide an appropriate basis in law for its objection, all parties and the Tennessee court agreed that Family Court should exercise jurisdiction over the dispositional phase of the neglect proceeding. Significantly, evidence regarding the children’s best interests and the feasibility of reunifying them with their respective parents and/or petitioner is in New York, including proof relating to any remedial and rehabilitative services offered to and engaged in by the mother and Jamie A. Any testimony required from witnesses located in Tennessee can be taken by phone. Matter of Diana XX v Nicole YY, 2021 NY Slip Op 00352, Third Dept 1-21-21

 

,

FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE MADE FINDINGS WHICH WOULD ALLOW THE CHILDREN TO APPLY FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined Family Court should have made findings which would allow the children to petition for special immigrant juvenile state (SIJS):

… [B]ased upon our independent factual review, the record supports a finding that reunification of the children with their father is not viable due to the father’s abandonment of the children …., and educational neglect of the child … . Further, the record supports a finding that it would not be in the best interests of the children to return to Guatemala, their previous country of nationality or country of last habitual residence … . Matter of Briceyda M. A. X. (Hugo R. A. O.–Maria H. X. C.), 2021 NY Slip Op 00180, Second Dept 1-13-21

 

, , ,

THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT FINDING THE APPELLANT IN THIS JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PROCEEDING MADE A TERRORISTIC THREAT IN VIOLATION OF PENAL LAW 490.20; THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF AN INTENT TO INTIMIDATE THE CIVILIAN POPULATION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the evidence in this juvenile delinquency proceeding did not support finding the appellant student made a terroristic threat. The issue was not preserved but the appeal was considered in the interest of justice:

The student testified that one morning during class some of the students were joking and talking when the appellant and another student got into “a little argument,” and the appellant told that student that he “[was] going to be 14 years old, chopped up in somebody’s backyard, and he’s going to get a white person to shoot up the school.” * * *

“Penal Law article 490 was enacted shortly after the attacks on September 11, 2001, to ensure that terrorists are prosecuted and punished in state courts with appropriate severity” … . “In construing the statute, courts must be cognizant that ‘the concept of terrorism has a unique meaning and its implications risk being trivialized if the terminology is applied loosely in situations that do not match our collective understanding of what constitutes a terrorist act'” … . As relevant here, Penal Law § 490.20 (1) provides that a person is guilty of making a terroristic threat when “with intent to intimidate . . . a civilian population . . . he or she threatens to commit or cause to be committed a specified offense and thereby causes a reasonable expectation or fear of the imminent commission of such offense.” We agree with the appellant that the presentment agency presented no evidence of an intent by the appellant to intimidate a civilian population with his statements … . Matter of Jaydin R., 2021 NY Slip Op 00176, Second Dept 1-13-21

 

, ,

MOTHER SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF HER RIGHT TO COUNSEL IN THIS CUSTODY PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined mother should have been advised of her right to counsel in this custody proceeding:

“Family Court Act § 262 provides certain parties to particular Family Court proceedings with a statutory right to counsel. If the party in question falls within one of the enumerated subdivisions thereto, he or she must be advised by the court, before proceeding, that he or she has the right to representation, the right to seek an adjournment to confer with counsel and the right to assigned counsel if he or she cannot afford to retain counsel” … . The deprivation of a party’s fundamental right to counsel in a custody or visitation proceeding requires reversal, without regard to the merits of the unrepresented party’s position … .

Here, the mother clearly fell within one of the enumerated subdivisions of Family Court Act § 262 because she was the respondent in a custody modification proceeding. Therefore, the Family Court should have advised the mother of her right to counsel. Matter of Follini v Currie, 2020 NY Slip Op 08062, Second Dept 12-30-20

 

,

MOTHER’S PETITION TO MODIFY THE PARENTAL ACCESS SCHEDULE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN RULED ON WITHOUT HOLDING A HEARING, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the judge should not have ruled in this custody proceeding without holding a hearing. Mother had filed a petition seeking modification of the parental access schedule:

“Custody determinations . . . require a careful and comprehensive evaluation of the material facts and circumstances in order to permit the court to ascertain the optimal result for the child” … . Accordingly, “custody determinations should ‘[g]enerally’ be made ‘only after a full and plenary hearing and inquiry'” … . This rule “furthers the substantial interest, shared by the State, the children, and the parents, in ensuring that custody proceedings generate a just and enduring result that, above all else, serves the best interest of a child” … .

Although the Court of Appeals has “decline[d] . . . to fashion a ‘one size fits all’ rule mandating a hearing in every custody case statewide,” it has cautioned that a court “opting to forgo a plenary hearing must take care to clearly articulate which factors were—or were not—material to its determination, and the evidence supporting its decision” … . The Court of Appeals has, therefore, criticized the “undefined and imprecise ‘adequate relevant information’ standard” as entailing “an unacceptably-high risk” of resulting in custody determinations that neither “conform to the best interest of a child” nor “adequately protect” a parent’s “fundamental right . . . ‘to control the upbringing of a child'”… . Accordingly, “[w]here . . . facts material to the best interest analysis, and the circumstances surrounding such facts, remain in dispute, a custody hearing is required” … .

Here, the record demonstrates disputed factual issues so as to require a hearing on the issue of the father’s parental access … . Moreover, the Family Court, in making its determinations without a hearing, relied upon the hearsay statements and conclusions of the forensic evaluator, whose opinions and credibility were untested by the parties. Contrary to the contention of the mother and the attorneys for the children, “the court’s mere reliance upon ‘adequate relevant information,’ as opposed to admissible evidence, was erroneous” … . Matter of Corcoran v Liebowitz, 2020 NY Slip Op 08058, Second Dept 12-30-20

 

,

CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGING THE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT IN THIS DIVORCE ACTION WAS UNCONSCIONABLE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the cause of action alleging the stipulation of settlement in this divorce action was unconscionable should have been dismissed:

… [W]e agree with the defendant that the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of her cross motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the second cause of action, seeking to set aside the stipulation on the ground of unconscionability. “‘An unconscionable bargain is one which no person in his or her senses and not under delusion would make on the one hand, and no honest and fair person would accept on the other, the inequality being so strong and manifest as to shock the conscience and confound the judgment of any person of common sense'” … . “An agreement, however, is not unconscionable ‘merely because, in retrospect, some of its provisions were improvident or one-sided'” … . Here, the terms of the stipulation, while perhaps improvident or one-sided in favor of the defendant, were not so unfair as to shock the conscience and confound the judgment of any person of common sense. Heinemann v Heinemann, 2020 NY Slip Op 08044, Second Dept 12-30-20

 

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