You are here: / Family Law

RELOCATION AND CUSTODY MODIFICATION ISSUES REQUIRED A HEARING FOCUSING ON THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the relocation/custody modification issues required a hearing focusing on the best interests of the child:

​

We agree with the father that the court erred in giving him a deadline to relocate within the 15-mile radius provided in the [Separation] Agreement without conducting a hearing, and that the court further erred in denying that part of the father’s cross motion seeking modification of the custody and visitation provisions of the Agreement, also without conducting a hearing. …

While ” [a] hearing is not automatically required whenever a parent seeks modification of a custody order’ ” … , here we conclude that the combined effect of the parties’ “relocation[s] was a change of circumstances warranting a reexamination of the existing custody arrangement” at an evidentiary hearing … . While the parties’ Agreement provided that the father must reside within a 15-mile radius of the mother’s residence upon her relocation, the overriding consideration in determining whether to enforce such a provision is the child’s best interests … .. It is impossible to determine on this record the effect on the child of enforcing or modifying the Agreement, and we conclude that the parties should be afforded an opportunity to present evidence concerning the child’s best interests. Shaw v Shaw, 2017 NY Slip Op 08138, Fourth Dept 11-17-17

 

FAMILY LAW (RELOCATION AND CUSTODY MODIFICATION ISSUES REQUIRED A HEARING FOCUSING ON THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD (FOURTH DEPT))/CUSTODY (FAMILY LAW, RELOCATION AND CUSTODY MODIFICATION ISSUES REQUIRED A HEARING FOCUSING ON THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD (FOURTH DEPT))

,

SEPARATION AGREEMENT REQUIRED BOTH PARENTS TO CONTRIBUTE TO COLLEGE EXPENSES BUT DID NOT INDICATE HOW MUCH EACH PARTY SHOULD CONTRIBUTE, AGREEMENT BREACHED BY WIFE’S FAILURE TO PAY ANYTHING, FAMILY COURT TO DETERMINE EACH PARENT’S APPROPRIATE CONTRIBUTION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the separation agreement should not have been interpreted to require that the cost of college tuition be split 50-50. The agreement simply capped each party’s contribution at 50%. Family Court must determine the proper contribution based upon resources. The wife’s failure to pay anything, however, violated the agreement:

​

Here, the parties agreed to “share in the costs of the child’s higher education,” with such contribution being capped at 50% of tuition at a state university, plus the cost of reasonable living expenses. By its plain language, the disputed provision unequivocally demonstrates that the parties intended to encourage and facilitate the child’s pursuit of a college degree and to make some financial contribution — up to, but not necessarily equaling, 50% of the total cost of tuition at a state university — toward that pursuit. In agreeing to contribute, the parties did not use language such as “split” or “50-50,” despite such language appearing elsewhere in the separation agreement, including in the sections addressing dependent care expenses and the cost of health insurance coverage. Given the appearance of such language elsewhere in the agreement, its absence in the relevant provision is telling, as it suggests that the parties did not intend, as Family Court found, to equally split the total cost of the child’s college tuition — subject to the cap — and living expenses … .. Furthermore, while the separation agreement provided that each party’s financial exposure would not exceed the tuition cap, it stopped short of defining the parties’ respective obligations. The absence of language defining their obligations does not render the provision ambiguous. Rather, by its omission, it is apparent that the parties contemplated a later agreement between themselves and, failing that, a subsequent determination by the court as to their respective contributions … .Thus, while we agree that the mother’s failure to contribute anything toward the cost of the child’s college education constituted a willful violation of the separation agreement, Family Court erred in concluding that the parties intended to equally share the total cost of the child’s college tuition and living expenses, subject to the tuition cap, and entering a judgment against the mother in the amount of $28,377.50. Matter of Dillon v Dillon, 2017 NY Slip Op 08062, Second Dept 11-15-17

 

FAMILY LAW (SEPARATION AGREEMENT REQUIRED BOTH PARENTS TO CONTRIBUTE TO COLLEGE EXPENSES BUT DID NOT INDICATE HOW MUCH EACH PARTY SHOULD CONTRIBUTE, AGREEMENT BREACHED BY WIFE’S FAILURE TO PAY ANYTHING, FAMILY COURT TO DETERMINE EACH PARENT’S APPROPRIATE CONTRIBUTION (THIRD DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (FAMILY LAW,  SEPARATION AGREEMENT REQUIRED BOTH PARENTS TO CONTRIBUTE TO , OLLEGE EXPENSES BUT DID NOT INDICATE HOW MUCH EACH PARTY SHOULD CONTRIBUTE, AGREEMENT BREACHED BY WIFE’S FAILURE TO PAY ANYTHING, FAMILY COURT TO DETERMINE EACH PARENT’S APPROPRIATE CONTRIBUTION (THIRD DEPT))/SEPARATION AGREEMENT (FAMILY LAW, CONTRACT LAW, SEPARATION AGREEMENT REQUIRED BOTH PARENTS TO CONTRIBUTE TO COLLEGE EXPENSES BUT DID NOT INDICATE HOW MUCH EACH PARTY SHOULD CONTRIBUTE, AGREEMENT BREACHED BY WIFE’S FAILURE TO PAY ANYTHING, FAMILY COURT TO DETERMINE EACH PARENT’S APPROPRIATE CONTRIBUTION (THIRD DEPT))/COLLEGE EXPENSES (FAMILY LAW, SEPARATION AGREEMENT REQUIRED BOTH PARENTS TO CONTRIBUTE TO COLLEGE EXPENSES BUT DID NOT INDICATE HOW MUCH EACH PARTY SHOULD CONTRIBUTE, AGREEMENT BREACHED BY WIFE’S FAILURE TO PAY ANYTHING, FAMILY COURT TO DETERMINE EACH PARENT’S APPROPRIATE CONTRIBUTION (THIRD DEPT))

THIRD CHILD SHOULD HAVE BEEN FOUND TO HAVE BEEN DERIVATIVELY NEGLECTED BASED UPON PROOF FATHER INJURED THE TWO OTHER CHILDREN (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Family Court properly found that a child (Nasir) was not derivatively abused based upon proof father had injured the two other children, but should have found the child derivatively neglected:

​

“[P]roof of the abuse or neglect of one child shall be admissible evidence on the issue of the abuse or neglect of any other child of, or the legal responsibility of, the respondent” … . Contrary to the contention of ACS [Administration for Children’s Services), the Family Court properly found that ACS failed to establish that Nasir was derivatively abused by the father … . However, we agree with ACS that it established, by a preponderance of the evidence … , that the father derivatively neglected Nasir … . “The focus of the inquiry to determine whether derivative neglect is present is whether the evidence of abuse or neglect of one child indicates a fundamental defect in the parent’s understanding of the duties of parenthood. Such flawed notions of parental responsibility are generally reliable indicators that a parent who has abused one child will place his or her other children at substantial risk of harm” …  The father’s physical abuse of Nyair demonstrated a fundamental defect in his understanding of parental duties relating to the care of children, placing Nasir in imminent danger of impairment of his physical, mental, or emotional condition… . Accordingly, the court should have made a finding that the father derivatively neglected Nasir. Matter of Nyair J. (Vernon J.), 2017 NY Slip Op 07729, Second Dept 11-8-17

 

FAMILY LAW (NEGLECT, THIRD CHILD SHOULD HAVE BEEN FOUND TO HAVE BEEN DERIVATIVELY NEGLECTED BASED UPON PROOF FATHER INJURED THE TWO OTHER CHILDREN (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLECT (THIRD CHILD SHOULD HAVE BEEN FOUND TO HAVE BEEN DERIVATIVELY NEGLECTED BASED UPON PROOF FATHER INJURED THE TWO OTHER CHILDREN (SECOND DEPT))/DERIVATIVE NEGLECT (THIRD CHILD SHOULD HAVE BEEN FOUND TO HAVE BEEN DERIVATIVELY NEGLECTED BASED UPON PROOF FATHER INJURED THE TWO OTHER CHILDREN (SECOND DEPT))/ABUSE (FAMILY LAW, THIRD CHILD SHOULD HAVE BEEN FOUND TO HAVE BEEN DERIVATIVELY NEGLECTED BASED UPON PROOF FATHER INJURED THE TWO OTHER CHILDREN (SECOND DEPT))/DERIVATIVE ABUSE (FAMILY LAW, THIRD CHILD SHOULD HAVE BEEN FOUND TO HAVE BEEN DERIVATIVELY NEGLECTED BASED UPON PROOF FATHER INJURED THE TWO OTHER CHILDREN (SECOND DEPT))

DERIVATIVE NEGLECT FINDING CANNOT BE BASED UPON A PRIOR ADJOURNMENT IN CONTEMPLATION OF DISMISSAL (ACD) WHICH IS NOT A DETERMINATION ON THE MERITS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Family Court should not have made a finding of derivative neglect based upon a prior ACD (adjournment in contemplation of dismissal) which is not a determination on the merits:

​

“Where a person’s conduct toward one child demonstrates a fundamental defect in the parent’s understanding of the duties of parenthood, or demonstrates such an impaired level of parental judgment as to create a substantial risk of harm for any child in his or her care, an adjudication of derivative neglect with respect to the other children is warranted” … . ” In determining whether a child born after the underlying acts of neglect should be adjudicated as a child who was derivatively neglected, the determinative factor is whether, taking into account the nature of the conduct and any other pertinent considerations, the conduct that formed the basis for a finding of neglect as to one child is so proximate in time to the derivative proceeding that it can reasonably be concluded that the condition still exists'” … . However, “[a]n ACD is emphatically not a determination on the merits. It is not akin to a finding of parental neglect, but, rather, it leaves the question unanswered” … .

Here, the Family Court did not enter a finding of neglect against the father in 2015. Instead, it entered an ACD against him based on his admission that he failed to provide a stable home for the child. Moreover, the DSS did not seek to reopen the earlier proceeding to establish the father’s neglect based on his failure to comply with the conditions set forth by the court. Under these circumstances, the court erred in entering a finding of derivative neglect against the father … . Matter of Delilah D. (Richard D.), 2017 NY Slip Op 07724, Second Dept 11-8-17

 

FAMILY LAW (DERIVATIVE NEGLECT FINDING CANNOT BE BASED UPON A PRIOR ADJOURNMENT IN CONTEMPLATION OF DISMISSAL (ACD) WHICH IS NOT A DETERMINATION ON THE MERITS (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLECT  (DERIVATIVE NEGLECT FINDING CANNOT BE BASED UPON A PRIOR ADJOURNMENT IN CONTEMPLATION OF DISMISSAL (ACD) WHICH IS NOT A DETERMINATION ON THE MERITS (SECOND DEPT))/DERIVATIVE NEGLECT  (DERIVATIVE NEGLECT FINDING CANNOT BE BASED UPON A PRIOR ADJOURNMENT IN CONTEMPLATION OF DISMISSAL (ACD) WHICH IS NOT A DETERMINATION ON THE MERITS (SECOND DEPT))/ADJOURNMENT IN CONTEMPLATION OF DISMISSAL (ACD) (DERIVATIVE NEGLECT FINDING CANNOT BE BASED UPON A PRIOR ADJOURNMENT IN CONTEMPLATION OF DISMISSAL (ACD) WHICH IS NOT A DETERMINATION ON THE MERITS (SECOND DEPT))/ACD  (DERIVATIVE NEGLECT FINDING CANNOT BE BASED UPON A PRIOR ADJOURNMENT IN CONTEMPLATION OF DISMISSAL (ACD) WHICH IS NOT A DETERMINATION ON THE MERITS (SECOND DEPT))

ALTHOUGH CHILD RESIDED WITH NON-PARENT FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS, THE ARRANGEMENT WAS TEMPORARY TO ALLOW FATHER TO ATTEND LAW SCHOOL, NON-PARENT’S PETITION FOR CUSTODY PROPERLY DISMISSED WITHOUT A HEARING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly dismissed without a hearing a non-parent’s petition seeking custody of a child. Although the child resided with the petitioner for a significant period of time, there was evidence the arrangement was temporary to allow father, who was working full-time, to attend law school at night:

​

The Court of Appeals has created a “two-prong inquiry for determining whether a nonparent may obtain custody as against a parent” … . “First, the nonparent must prove the existence of extraordinary circumstances such as surrender, abandonment, persisting neglect, unfitness, and unfortunate or involuntary disruption of custody over an extended period of time” … . “If extraordinary circumstances are established such that the nonparent has standing to seek custody, the court must make an award of custody based on the best interest of the child” … .

“A hearing to determine the issue of standing is not necessary where there are no triable issues of fact raised in the papers submitted”… .

​

… [T]he period of time when the child resided primarily with the petitioner and not the father largely coincided with the period of time when the father was working full time and attending law school at night. During that period of time, the father contributed financially to the child’s support. The petitioner and the father completed certain forms designating the petitioner as the child’s caregiver for stated purposes, yet these forms were for a limited duration, and some of the forms contained notations to the effect that the father was not giving up his custodial rights. Matter of Schmitt v Troche, 2017 NY Slip Op 07732, Second Dept 11-8-17

 

FAMILY LAW (ALTHOUGH CHILD RESIDED WITH NON-PARENT FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS, THE ARRANGEMENT WAS TEMPORARY TO ALLOW FATHER TO ATTEND LAW SCHOOL, NON-PARENT’S PETITION FOR CUSTODY PROPERLY DISMISSED WITHOUT A HEARING (SECOND DEPT))/CUSTODY (FAMILY LAW, NON-PARENT, ALTHOUGH CHILD RESIDED WITH NON-PARENT FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS, THE ARRANGEMENT WAS TEMPORARY TO ALLOW FATHER TO ATTEND LAW SCHOOL, NON-PARENT’S PETITION FOR CUSTODY PROPERLY DISMISSED WITHOUT A HEARING (SECOND DEPT))/STANDING (FAMILY LAW, NON-PARENT, ALTHOUGH CHILD RESIDED WITH NON-PARENT FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS, THE ARRANGEMENT WAS TEMPORARY TO ALLOW FATHER TO ATTEND LAW SCHOOL, NON-PARENT’S PETITION FOR CUSTODY PROPERLY DISMISSED WITHOUT A HEARING (SECOND DEPT))/NON-PARENT (FAMILY LAW, CUSTODY, STANDING,  ALTHOUGH CHILD RESIDED WITH NON-PARENT FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS, THE ARRANGEMENT WAS TEMPORARY TO ALLOW FATHER TO ATTEND LAW SCHOOL, NON-PARENT’S PETITION FOR CUSTODY PROPERLY DISMISSED WITHOUT A HEARING (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

BECAUSE INCARCERATION IMPOSED AS PART OF A FAMILY COURT NEGLECT/PROTECTIVE-ORDER-VIOLATION DISPOSITION WAS REMEDIAL, NOT PUNITIVE, CRIMINAL PROSECUTION FOR CONTEMPT STEMMING FROM THE VIOLATIONS OF THE PROTECTIVE ORDER NOT PRECLUDED BY THE DOUBLE JEOPARDY RULE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined criminal contempt charges were not precluded by the double jeopardy rule. As part of a neglect proceeding defendant admitted violating orders of protection. Although a 60-day period of incarceration was part of the disposition, it was repeatedly delayed as the court monitored defendant’s compliance (and was never imposed). Because the incarceration was deemed to induce compliance with Family Court’s orders, it was remedial, not punitive in nature. Therefore a subsequent prosecution for criminal contempt, arising from the violations of the orders of protection, did not violate the double jeopardy prohibition:

 

The double jeopardy protections of the US and NY Constitutions “shield a defendant from multiple criminal punishments arising from the same offense” … . Whether double jeopardy bars a criminal prosecution subsequent to a finding of contempt or similar violation of a court order depends not on the labels used to describe the previously imposed sentence, but on “the character and purpose” of that sentence … . In a contempt matter, the sentence imposed for violation of a court order is remedial if it was intended “to coerce compliance” with a court order … . By contrast, when “a contemnor is sentenced to imprisonment for a definite period which cannot be affected — that is, ended — by the contemnor’s compliance with the law [or a court order], then the contempt is not remedial but punitive” … . Double jeopardy precludes “a subsequent prosecution where a prior contempt sentence serves a punitive rather than remedial purpose” … . However, if the imposed sentence was remedial, double jeopardy does not apply … . People v Lamica, 2017 NY Slip Op 07646, Third Dept 11-2-17

 

FAMILY LAW (ORDERS OF PROTECTION, BECAUSE INCARCERATION IMPOSED AS PART OF A FAMILY COURT NEGLECT/PROTECTIVE-ORDER-VIOLATION DISPOSITION WAS REMEDIAL, NOT PUNITIVE, CRIMINAL PROSECUTION FOR CONTEMPT STEMMING FROM THE VIOLATIONS OF THE PROTECTIVE ORDER NOT PRECLUDED BY THE DOUBLE JEOPARDY RULE (THIRD DEPT))/CRIMINAL LAW (FAMILY LAW, ORDERS OF PROTECTION, CONTEMPT, DOUBLE JEOPARDY, ORDERS OF PROTECTION, BECAUSE INCARCERATION IMPOSED AS PART OF A FAMILY COURT NEGLECT/PROTECTIVE-ORDER-VIOLATION DISPOSITION WAS REMEDIAL, NOT PUNITIVE, CRIMINAL PROSECUTION FOR CONTEMPT STEMMING FROM THE VIOLATIONS OF THE PROTECTIVE ORDER NOT PRECLUDED BY THE DOUBLE JEOPARDY RULE (THIRD DEPT))/CONTEMPT (FAMILY LAW, ORDERS OF PROTECTION, CONTEMPT, DOUBLE JEOPARDY, ORDERS OF PROTECTION, BECAUSE INCARCERATION IMPOSED AS PART OF A FAMILY COURT NEGLECT/PROTECTIVE-ORDER-VIOLATION DISPOSITION WAS REMEDIAL, NOT PUNITIVE, CRIMINAL PROSECUTION FOR CONTEMPT STEMMING FROM THE VIOLATIONS OF THE PROTECTIVE ORDER NOT PRECLUDED BY THE DOUBLE JEOPARDY RULE (THIRD DEPT))/DOUBLE JEOPARDY (FAMILY LAW, ORDERS OF PROTECTION, CRIMINAL CONTEMPT, ORDERS OF PROTECTION, BECAUSE INCARCERATION IMPOSED AS PART OF A FAMILY COURT NEGLECT/PROTECTIVE-ORDER-VIOLATION DISPOSITION WAS REMEDIAL, NOT PUNITIVE, CRIMINAL PROSECUTION FOR CONTEMPT STEMMING FROM THE VIOLATIONS OF THE PROTECTIVE ORDER NOT PRECLUDED BY THE DOUBLE JEOPARDY RULE (THIRD DEPT))

STIPULATION WHICH WAS NOT MERGED INTO THE JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS UNENFORCEABLE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined a stipulation which was not merged into the judgment of divorce should not have been dismissed as unenforceable:

​

It is well settled that a party to a stipulation that is incorporated but not merged into a judgment of divorce “cannot challenge the [enforceability of the] stipulation by way of motion but, rather, must do so by commencement of a plenary action” … . Conversely, a party seeking to enforce the terms of such a stipulation may do so either by a motion to enforce the judgment … . In this case, the issue whether the stipulation was enforceable was not properly before the court because defendant did not commence a plenary action challenging its enforceability. Rather, plaintiff moved to enforce the judgment incorporating the stipulation, and defendant effectively conceded that the stipulation was enforceable when she asserted that the only questions before the court were the valuation of her master’s degree and the extent of plaintiff’s marital interest therein. Thus, we conclude that the court erred in denying plaintiff’s motion on the ground that the stipulation was unenforceable … . Anderson v Anderson, 2017 NY Slip Op 06786, Fourth Dept 9-29-17

FAMILY LAW (DIVORCE, STIPULATION WHICH WAS NOT MERGED INTO THE JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS UNENFORCEABLE (FOURTH DEPT))/STIPULATIONS (DIVORCE, STIPULATION WHICH WAS NOT MERGED INTO THE JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS UNENFORCEABLE (FOURTH DEPT))/DIVORCE (STIPULATION WHICH WAS NOT MERGED INTO THE JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS UNENFORCEABLE (FOURTH DEPT))

EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT FINDING THAT RESPONDENT WAS LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CHILD, NEGLECT DETERMINATION CANNOT STAND (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court, determined the evidence was insufficient to support the finding that respondent was legally responsible for the child, therefore the neglect finding could not stand:

​

… [T]he evidence does not support Family Court’s determination that he is a person legally responsible for the child … , and the court therefore erred in determining that he neglected the child … . Even giving deference to the court’s credibility determinations … , we conclude that petitioner’s witnesses established that respondent and the mother of the child had been living together for some unspecified period of time, but there was nothing further to show that respondent acted “as the functional equivalent of a parent in a familial or household setting” … . There was no testimony that respondent, the mother, and the child were “living together as a family” … , or that respondent provided childcare or financial support, or performed any household duties … . Matter of Kameron V. (Eva V.), 2017 NY Slip Op 06782, Fourth Dept 9-29-17

FAMILY LAW (EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT FINDING THAT RESPONDENT WAS LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CHILD, NEGLECT DETERMINATION CANNOT STAND (FOURTH DEPT))/NEGLECT (EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT FINDING THAT RESPONDENT WAS LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CHILD, NEGLECT DETERMINATION CANNOT STAND (FOURTH DEPT))

ADOPTION OF CHILD BORN TO A SURROGATE WHILE THE PARTNERS WERE LEGALLY MARRIED UNDER BRITISH LAW WAS PROPERLY VACATED, DURING THE ADOPTION PROCEEDINGS THE COURT WAS MISINFORMED ABOUT ONE OF THE PARTNER’S INVOLVEMENT WITH THE CHILD (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined Family Court properly vacated an adoption because one of the parties (Ming) who had parental rights was not notified of the adoption proceedings and the court was not fully or accurately informed of Ming’s involvement with the child. Ming was legally married to Marco under British law. Both Ming and Marco had contributed sperm and a surrogate carried the baby. The child was conceived with Marco’s sperm and Marco was ultimately awarded custody. After Ming moved back to England, Carlos, Marco’s new partner, adopted the child. It was that adoption which was properly vacated:

​

It is undisputed that Ming and Marco’s marriage in the UK was effective as of August 2008. New York courts as a matter of comity will recognize such out-of-state marriages … . The child was born in 2014, as the result of jointly executed surrogacy agreements, at a time when the couple was considered legally married, thus giving rise to the presumption that the child is the legitimate child of both Marco and Ming .,, . After the child was born, Marco, Ming and the child lived together as a family, and the couple took affirmative steps in the UK to establish Ming’s parental rights in accordance with UK law. Under these circumstances, the Missouri judgment in 2014 awarding Marco sole and exclusive custody of the child, as opposed to the egg donor and surrogate, was insufficient to rebut the presumption of legitimacy.

​

… Marco and Ming were deemed legally married when they embarked on the surrogacy process to have a child together .., . Accordingly, the child was born in wedlock, and Ming was entitled to notice of the adoption proceeding … . …

… The adoption petition required petitioner to give a sworn statement that the child to be adopted was not the subject of any proceeding affecting his or her custody or status. Even though petitioner was aware of the Florida divorce action before finalization of the adoption, he failed to disclose the action to the court, instead averring in a supplemental affidavit that there had been no change in circumstances “whatsoever” since the filing of the adoption petition. Matter of Maria-Irene D., 2017 NY Slip Op 06716, First Dept 9-28-17

 

FAMILY LAW (ADOPTION OF CHILD BORN TO A SURROGATE WHILE THE PARTNERS WERE LEGALLY MARRIED UNDER BRITISH LAW WAS PROPERLY VACATED, DURING THE ADOPTION PROCEEDINGS THE COURT WAS MISINFORMED ABOUT ONE OF THE PARTNER’S INVOLVEMENT WITH THE CHILD (FIRST DEPT))/ADOPTION (ADOPTION OF CHILD BORN TO A SURROGATE WHILE THE PARTNERS WERE LEGALLY MARRIED UNDER BRITISH LAW WAS PROPERLY VACATED, DURING THE ADOPTION PROCEEDINGS THE COURT WAS MISINFORMED ABOUT ONE OF THE PARTNER’S INVOLVEMENT WITH THE CHILD (FIRST DEPT))/MARRIAGE  (ADOPTION OF CHILD BORN TO A SURROGATE WHILE THE PARTNERS WERE LEGALLY MARRIED UNDER BRITISH LAW WAS PROPERLY VACATED, DURING THE ADOPTION PROCEEDINGS THE COURT WAS MISINFORMED ABOUT ONE OF THE PARTNER’S INVOLVEMENT WITH THE CHILD (FIRST DEPT))

WIFE NOT ENTITLED TO INTEREST ON A LATE LUMP SUM PAYMENT, HUSBAND NOT ENTITLED TO RECOUP OVERPAYMENT OF MAINTENANCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, under the particular facts, determined the wife was not entitled to post or pre-judgment interest on a late $1,000,000 lump sum payment which was part of a stipulation of settlement in this divorce action. The court noted that the husband was not entitled to recoup an overpayment of maintenance/child support as a matter of public policy:

​

… [T]he award to the defendant of $19,241.31, representing an alleged overpayment of maintenance, was improper. The recoupment of overpayments of maintenance and/or child support is generally against public policy, since those payments are deemed to have been spent for that purpose… . Further, voluntary payments are generally not credited against amounts currently due … . The voluntary payments were made, at least in part, because the plaintiff was unable to satisfy certain mortgage liens on the real property transferred to her because the defendant did not transfer the $1,000,000 distributive award to her in a timely manner. O’Donnell v O’Donnell, 2017 NY Slip Op 06540, Second Dept 9-20-17

FAMILY LAW (WIFE NOT ENTITLED TO INTEREST ON A LATE LUMP SUM PAYMENT, HUSBAND NOT ENTITLED TO RECOUP OVERPAYMENT OF MAINTENANCE (SECOND DEPT))/DIVORCE (WIFE NOT ENTITLED TO INTEREST ON A LATE LUMP SUM PAYMENT, HUSBAND NOT ENTITLED TO RECOUP OVERPAYMENT OF MAINTENANCE (SECOND DEPT))/MAINTENANCE (WIFE NOT ENTITLED TO INTEREST ON A LATE LUMP SUM PAYMENT, HUSBAND NOT ENTITLED TO RECOUP OVERPAYMENT OF MAINTENANCE (SECOND DEPT))/CHILD SUPPORT (WIFE NOT ENTITLED TO INTEREST ON A LATE LUMP SUM PAYMENT, HUSBAND NOT ENTITLED TO RECOUP OVERPAYMENT OF MAINTENANCE (SECOND DEPT))

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