You are here: / Court of Appeals

Tag Archive for: Court of Appeals

,

PRECEDENT ALLOWING VOLUNTARY POST-MIRANDA STATEMENTS TO BE USED TO IMPEACH REAFFIRMED.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, reaffirmed its precedent allowing voluntary statements made after Miranda rights have been invoked to be used to impeach should the defendant take the stand:

This Court has long held that if a statement made by the defendant to the police is voluntary, it may be used for impeachment purposes; but if a statement is involuntary, it will not be admissible, even if it may be deemed reliable … . * * *

Here, County Court determined that the statements were voluntary and the Appellate Division affirmed that determination. …  …[T]here is nothing in the record to support defendant’s contention that [the interrogating officer] consciously circumvented defendant’s invocation of his Fifth Amendment rights or otherwise rendered defendant’s statements involuntary as a matter of law. Thus, it cannot be said that County Court abused its discretion in denying defendant’s motion to preclude the People from utilizing the statements on cross-examination or rebuttal. People v Wilson, 2016 NY Slip Op 06942, CtApp 10-25-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (PRECEDENT ALLOWING VOLUNTARY POST-MIRANDA STATEMENTS TO BE USED TO IMPEACH REAFFIRMED)/EVIDENCE PRECEDENT ALLOWING VOLUNTARY POST-MIRANDA STATEMENTS TO BE USED TO IMPEACH REAFFIRMED)/STATEMENTS (CRIMINAL LAW, PRECEDENT ALLOWING VOLUNTARY POST-MIRANDA STATEMENTS TO BE USED TO IMPEACH REAFFIRMED

RESIDENTIAL AREA OF MIXED USE BUILDING COULD NOT BE ACCESSED FROM WHERE DEFENDANT ENTERED, BURGLARY (ENTRY OF DWELLING) CONVICTION REVERSED.

The Court of Appeals, over an extensive dissent, determined defendant should not have been convicted of burglary (entry of a “dwelling”) because the residential area of the building could not be accessed from where he entered:

Under the narrow circumstances of this case, application of the general rule as to what constitutes a dwelling in a mixed residential and commercial building within the meaning of Penal Law § 140.00 (2) is not warranted. Defendant, from a public sidewalk, entered the open cellar doors into a basement that was both entirely disconnected from the building and completely inaccessible to the residences in that building. The basement was not contiguous to any residential units. * * * …[T]he deli basement was both inaccessible to, and remote from, the residential apartments. It was inaccessible because defendant could not go anywhere into the building from the basement. He could not reach the deli or the apartments. All that he could reach from the basement was the public sidewalk. The basement was remote given that it was not used by the residents for any purposes and that there was no proof of any relationship between that space and the residents. In sum, there was no “close contiguity” … between the basement and the dwellings. Under these facts, “the special dangers inherent in the burglary of a dwelling do not exist” … . People v Joseph, 2016 NY Slip Op 06945, CtApp 10-25-16

CRIMINAL LAW (RESIDENTIAL AREA OF MIXED USE BUILDING COULD NOT BE ACCESSED FROM WHERE DEFENDANT ENTERED, BURGLARY CONVICTION REVERSED)/BURGLARY (RESIDENTIAL AREA OF MIXED USE BUILDING COULD NOT BE ACCESSED FROM WHERE DEFENDANT ENTERED, BURGLARY CONVICTION REVERSED)/DWELLING (BURGLARY, (RESIDENTIAL AREA OF MIXED USE BUILDING COULD NOT BE ACCESSED FROM WHERE DEFENDANT ENTERED, BURGLARY CONVICTION REVERSED)

,

PEOPLE DID NOT ACT WITH DUE DILIGENCE SEEKING DNA TEST RESULTS; INDICTMENT PROPERLY DISMISSED ON SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, affirming the dismissal of the attempted first degree murder indictment on speedy trial grounds, determined the People did not act with due diligence in seeking DNA test results. DNA had been recovered from the gun involved. A DNA swab was not taken from the defendant until nine months after indictment:

The time to conduct DNA testing and to produce a DNA report may, under certain circumstances, be excluded from speedy trial computation as an exceptional circumstance. To invoke the exclusion provided in CPL 30.30 (4) (g), however, the People must exercise due diligence in obtaining the evidence. If the exclusion “is to be given reasonable effect and [] is to fulfill the legislative purpose, [it] must be limited to instances in which the prosecution’s inability to proceed is justified by the purposes of the investigation and credible, vigorous activity in pursuing it” … . In addition, while we have recognized that “‘[t]here is no precise definition of what constitutes an exceptional circumstance under CPL 30.30 (4) (g),'” we have stated “that the range of the term’s application is limited by the dominant legislative intent informing CPL 30.30, namely, to discourage prosecutorial inaction” … .

Here, as a result of the People’s inaction in obtaining defendant’s DNA exemplar, the 161-day period of delay to test the DNA and to produce the DNA report was not excludable from speedy trial computation as an exceptional circumstance. People v Clarke, 2016 NY Slip Op 06939, CtApp 10-25-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (PEOPLE DID NOT ACT WITH DUE DILIGENCE SEEKING DNA TEST RESULTS; INDICTMENT PROPERLY DISMISSED ON SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS)/ SPEEDY TRIAL (PEOPLE DID NOT ACT WITH DUE DILIGENCE SEEKING DNA TEST RESULTS; INDICTMENT PROPERLY DISMISSED ON SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS)/DNA TESTS (CRIMINAL LAW, PEOPLE DID NOT ACT WITH DUE DILIGENCE SEEKING DNA TEST RESULTS; INDICTMENT PROPERLY DISMISSED ON SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS)

, , ,

MID-TRIAL OBJECTION TO SUFFICIENCY OF EXPERT-NOTICE PROPERLY OVERRULED AS UNTIMELY.

NEGLIGENCE, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, EVIDENCE, CIVIL PROCEDURE.

The Court of Appeals determined the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied plaintiff’s motion to strike defendant’s expert’s testimony. The “expert-evidence” notice indicated the expert would testify about the cause of plaintiff’s decedent’s death but did not indicate the substance of the testimony. At trial the expert did not agree with the cause described in the autopsy report (pneumonia) and testified death was attributable to cardiac arrhythmia. The motion to strike argued the “expert notice” was deficient because it did not provide any detail about the expert’s opinion. Because the lack of detail was obvious pre-trial, the mid-trial objection was properly overruled:

Plaintiff made her motion mid-trial immediately prior to the expert’s testimony. Plaintiff argues that at the time of the expert exchange, she had no reason to object to the disclosure statement because the statement gave no indication that defendant would challenge plaintiff’s theory of decedent’s cause of death. Assuming defendant’s disclosure was deficient, such deficiency was readily apparent; the disclosure identified “causation” as a subject matter but did not provide any indication of a theory or basis for the expert’s opinion. This is not analogous to a situation in which a party’s disclosure was misleading or the trial testimony was inconsistent with the disclosure. Rather, the issue here was insufficiency.

The trial court’s ruling did not endorse the sufficiency of the statement but instead addressed the motion’s timeliness. The lower courts were entitled to determine, based on the facts and circumstances of this particular case, that the time to challenge the statement’s content had passed because the basis of the objection was readily apparent from the face of the disclosure statement and could have been raised — and potentially cured — before trial. Rivera v Montefiore Med. Ctr., 2016 NY Slip Op 06854, CtApp 10-20-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, MID-TRIAL OBJECTION TO SUFFICIENCY OF EXPERT-NOTICE PROPERLY OVERRULED AS UNTIMELY)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (MID-TRIAL OBJECTION TO SUFFICIENCY OF EXPERT-NOTICE PROPERLY OVERRULED AS UNTIMELY)/EVIDENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, EXPERT EVIDENCE, MID-TRIAL OBJECTION TO SUFFICIENCY OF EXPERT-NOTICE PROPERLY OVERRULED AS UNTIMELY)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, MID-TRIAL OBJECTION TO SUFFICIENCY OF EXPERT-NOTICE PROPERLY OVERRULED AS UNTIMELY)

JUDGE’S EGREGIOUS BEHAVIOR WARRANTED REMOVAL FROM OFFICE.

The Court of Appeals determined the petitioner, a Town and Village Justice, should be removed from office for what might be termed “bullying” while on and off the bench:

The misconduct giving rise to that concession “qualifies as ‘truly egregious'” … . The record reflects that, among other things, petitioner used a sanction — a tool meant to “shield” from frivolous conduct — as a “sword” to punish a legal services organization for a perceived slight in an inexcusable and patently improper way (see 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [a] [authorizing the imposition of sanctions, but precluding town and village courts from applying such penalties]). The record is also replete with instances in which petitioner used his office and standing as a platform from which to bully and to intimidate. To that end, it is undisputed that petitioner engaged in ethnic smearing and name-calling and repeatedly displayed poor temperament — perhaps most significantly, by engaging in a physical altercation with a student worker.

Those actions are representative of an even more serious problem. Petitioner — in what allegedly was a grossly misguided attempt to motivate — repeatedly threatened to hold various officials and employees of the Village of Spring Valley in contempt without cause or process. …

Significantly, too, petitioner’s hectoring extended beyond the courthouse. In what ostensibly was an attempt to undermine a former co-Judge and an apparent political adversary, petitioner willfully injected himself into the political process involving the election of an office other than his own. Matter of Simon, 2016 NY Slip Op 06855, CtApp 10-20-16

 

JUDGES (JUDGE’S EGREGIOUS BEHAVIOR WARRANTED REMOVAL FROM OFFICE)

, ,

ADMISSIBILITY OF DOCUMENT ORIGINALLY CREATED IN ELECTRONIC FORM, HERE A RECORD OF TESTING OF THE SIMULATOR SOLUTION USED IN AN ALCOHOL BREATH TEST, IS DETERMINED UNDER CPLR 4518, NOT CPLR 4539.

CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE, CIVIL PROCEDURE.

The Court of Appeals determined evidence which was originally generated in electronic form was admissible under CPLR 4518 (a) and CPLR 4539 (b) applies only to documents originally in hard copy and subsequently scanned into digital form. The document in question was a record of testing of the simulator solution used during an alcohol breath test:

County Court correctly held that the applicable statute is CPLR 4518 (a), which was amended in 2002 (see L 2002, ch 136, § 1) to provide that an “electronic record . . . shall be admissible in a tangible exhibit that is a true and accurate representation of such electronic record” (CPLR 4518 [a]). The statute further provides that the court “may consider the method or manner by which the electronic record was stored, maintained or retrieved in determining whether the exhibit is a true and accurate representation of such electronic record,” but “[a]ll other circumstances of the making of the memorandum or record. . . may be proved to affect its weight,” and “shall not affect its admissibility” (id. [emphasis added]).

The 2002 amendment to CPLR 4518 (a) was adopted by the legislature upon the recommendation of the Chief Administrative Judge’s Advisory Committee on Civil Practice specifically because the Committee and the legislature concluded that CPLR 4539 (b) had no application to documents originally created in electronic form. People v Kangas, 2016 NY Slip Op 06857, CtApp 10-20-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (DWI, BREATH TEST, ADMISSIBILITYY OF DOCUMENT ORIGINALLY CREATED IN ELECTRONIC FORM, HERE A RECORD OF TESTING OF THE SIMULATOR SOLUTION USED IN AN ALCOHOL BREATH TEST, IS DETERMINED UNDER CPLR 4518, NOT CPLR 4539)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, DWI, BREATH TEST, ADMISSIBILITYY OF DOCUMENT ORIGINALLY CREATED IN ELECTRONIC FORM, HERE A RECORD OF TESTING OF THE SIMULATOR SOLUTION USED IN AN ALCOHOL BREATH TEST, IS DETERMINED UNDER CPLR 4518, NOT CPLR 4539)DWI (BREATH TEST,  ADMISSIBILITYY OF DOCUMENT ORIGINALLY CREATED IN ELECTRONIC FORM, HERE A RECORD OF TESTING OF THE SIMULATOR SOLUTION USED IN AN ALCOHOL BREATH TEST, IS DETERMINED UNDER CPLR 4518, NOT CPLR 4539)/BREATH TEST (DWI, ADMISSIBILITYY OF DOCUMENT ORIGINALLY CREATED IN ELECTRONIC FORM, HERE A RECORD OF TESTING OF THE SIMULATOR SOLUTION USED IN AN ALCOHOL BREATH TEST, IS DETERMINED UNDER CPLR 4518, NOT CPLR 4539)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (CRIMINAL LAW, DWI, BREATH TEST, ADMISSIBILITYY OF DOCUMENT ORIGINALLY CREATED IN ELECTRONIC FORM, HERE A RECORD OF TESTING OF THE SIMULATOR SOLUTION USED IN AN ALCOHOL BREATH TEST, IS DETERMINED UNDER CPLR 4518, NOT CPLR 4539)

,

FAILURE TO PROVIDE MEANINGFUL NOTICE OF THE CONTENTS OF A JURY NOTE IS A MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR WHICH NEED NOT BE PRESERVED; FAILURE TO PROVIDE A MEANINGFUL RESPONSE TO A JURY NOTE, HOWEVER, IS NOT A MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR AND MUST BE PRESERVED BY OBJECTION.

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, determined the trial judge’s acceptance of a verdict before responding to the jury’s request for a readback was not a mode of proceedings error and therefore must be preserved by objection. Just prior to the verdict, the judge had read the jury’s request verbatim in the presence of counsel, defendant and the jury. The judge’s failure to respond to the request (unlike a failure to apprise the parties of the contents of the request) is not a mode of proceedings error:

… “[W]here counsel has meaningful notice of the content of a jury note and of the trial court’s response, or lack thereof, to that note, the court’s alleged violation of the meaningful response requirement does not constitute a mode of proceedings error, and counsel is required to preserve any claim of error for appellate review” … .

Here, the trial court complied with its responsibility to provide counsel with meaningful notice of the jury’s notes by reading the notes verbatim into the record in the presence of counsel, defendant, and the jury … . Inasmuch as counsel had meaningful notice of the jury notes, the trial court’s failure to provide a response to the jury’s outstanding request for a readback of testimony before accepting the verdict does not constitute a mode of proceedings error … . Counsel was required to object to preserve any claim of error for this Court’s review. “Although the court’s procedure here may have been error, it was not a mode of proceedings error, and we have no jurisdiction to review it” .. . . People v Wiggs, 2016 NY Slip Op 06860, CtApp 10-20-16

CRIMINAL LAW (FAILURE TO PROVIDE MEANINGFUL NOTICE OF THE CONTENTS OF A JURY NOTE IS A MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR WHICH NEED NOT BE PRESERVED; FAILURE TO PROVIDE A MEANINGFUL RESPONSE TO A JURY NOTE, HOWEVER, IS NOT A MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR AND MUST BE PRESERVED BY OBJECTION)/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, FAILURE TO PROVIDE MEANINGFUL NOTICE OF THE CONTENTS OF A JURY NOTE IS A MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR WHICH NEED NOT BE PRESERVED; FAILURE TO PROVIDE A MEANINGFUL RESPONSE TO A JURY NOTE, HOWEVER, IS NOT A MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR AND MUST BE PRESERVED BY OBJECTION)/JURY NOTES (CRIMINAL LAW, FAILURE TO PROVIDE MEANINGFUL NOTICE OF THE CONTENTS OF A JURY NOTE IS A MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR WHICH NEED NOT BE PRESERVED; FAILURE TO PROVIDE A MEANINGFUL RESPONSE TO A JURY NOTE, HOWEVER, IS NOT A MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR AND MUST BE PRESERVED BY OBJECTION)/MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR (FAILURE TO PROVIDE MEANINGFUL NOTICE OF THE CONTENTS OF A JURY NOTE IS A MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR WHICH NEED NOT BE PRESERVED; FAILURE TO PROVIDE A MEANINGFUL RESPONSE TO A JURY NOTE, HOWEVER, IS NOT A MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR AND MUST BE PRESERVED BY OBJECTION)

,

DEFENDANT’S SPEEDY TRIAL ARGUMENT PRESERVED BY A HEARING; HAD THE HEARING NOT BEEN HELD, HOWEVER, DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO REPLY TO THE PEOPLE’S EXPLANATION OF THE DELAY WOULD HAVE RENDERED THE ARGUMENT UNPRESERVED.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, determined defendant’s speedy trial argument was preserved for review and affirmed dismissal of the indictment on speedy trial grounds. In response to defendant’s motion to dismiss, the People produced an explanation of the delay in seeking the indictment (witness out of the country). The defendant did not reply to the People’s explanation. But a hearing on the speedy trial motion was subsequently held. The Court of Appeals found that the issue was preserved by the hearing. The court noted, however, had there been no hearing, the defendant’s failure to reply to the People’s explanation of the delay would have rendered the issue unpreserved. A defendant, therefore, should always reply to the People’s explanation of a delay:

In the absence of a hearing, a defendant’s substantive CPL 30.30 arguments will be unpreserved where the defendant failed to otherwise raise them, for instance, “in his initial submission or in a reply” … . Accordingly, a defendant would be well-advised to raise any CPL 30.30 arguments in a reply so as to ensure their preservation. For instance, where a defendant mistakenly believes that the People failed to “conclusively refute[]” his motion (CPL 210.45[5][c]) — and therefore opts not to reply — the defendant risks summary denial of his motion, leaving him with an unsuccessful and unpreserved claim. However, a defendant’s failure to reply is not fatal to his claim where, as here, the defendant properly requests and receives a hearing and, at that hearing, his arguments are raised and developed … . People v Allard, 2016 NY Slip Op 06853, CtApp 10-20-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT’S SPEEDY TRIAL ARGUMENT PRESERVED BY A HEARING; HAD THE HEARING NOT BEEN HELD, HOWEVER, DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO REPLY TO THE PEOPLE’S EXPLANATION OF THE DELAY WOULD HAVE RENDERED THE ARGUMENT UNPRESERVED)/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, (DEFENDANT’S SPEEDY TRIAL ARGUMENT PRESERVED BY A HEARING; HAD THE HEARING NOT BEEN HELD, HOWEVER, DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO REPLY TO THE PEOPLE’S EXPLANATION OF THE DELAY WOULD HAVE RENDERED THE ARGUMENT UNPRESERVED)/SPEEDY TRIAL (DEFENDANT’S SPEEDY TRIAL ARGUMENT PRESERVED BY A HEARING; HAD THE HEARING NOT BEEN HELD, HOWEVER, DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO REPLY TO THE PEOPLE’S EXPLANATION OF THE DELAY WOULD HAVE RENDERED THE ARGUMENT UNPRESERVED)

,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER LATE NOTICE DEFENSE WAIVED BY FAILURE TO RAISE THE DEFENSE IN DISCLAIMER LETTERS; MOTION TO ADD DEFENSE TO ANSWER PROPERLY GRANTED.

The Court of Appeals, in a brief memorandum decision, determined there was a question of fact whether defendant insurance company waived the late-notice defense by not mentioning the defense in the disclaimer letters. The defense had been raised in earlier communications. Therefore defendants’ motion to add the defense in an amended answer was properly granted:

Analyzing the circumstances under the common-law waiver standard, which requires an examination of all factors, defendants cannot be said to have waived their right to assert the late-notice defense as a matter of law by failing to specifically identify late notice in their disclaimer letters. Defendants identified the late-notice defense in early communications with plaintiff before relying on a reservation of rights in two disclaimer letters. “[U]nder common-law principles, triable issues of fact exist whether defendants clearly manifested an intent to abandon their late-notice defense” (Keyspan Gas E. Corp. v Munich Reins. Am., Inc., 23 NY3d 583, 591 [2014]). Accordingly, Supreme Court properly granted defendants’ motion for leave to amend their answer to reassert the affirmative defense of late notice. Estee Lauder Inc. v OneBeacon Ins. Group, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 06012, CtApp 9-15-16

INSURANCE LAW (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER LATE NOTICE DEFENSE WAIVED BY FAILURE TO RAISE THE DEFENSE IN DISCLAIMER LETTERS; MOTION TO ADD DEFENSE TO ANSWER PROPERLY GRANTED)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (INSURANCE LAW, WAIVER, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER LATE NOTICE DEFENSE WAIVED BY FAILURE TO RAISE THE DEFENSE IN DISCLAIMER LETTERS; MOTION TO ADD DEFENSE TO ANSWER PROPERLY GRANTED)/WAIVER (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER LATE NOTICE DEFENSE WAIVED BY FAILURE TO RAISE THE DEFENSE IN DISCLAIMER LETTERS; MOTION TO ADD DEFENSE TO ANSWER PROPERLY GRANTED)

PARTNER IN AN UNMARRIED COUPLE WITH NO BIOLOGICAL OR ADOPTIVE RELATIONSHIP WITH A CHILD HAS STANDING AS A PARENT TO SEEK CUSTODY/VISITATION.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam, overruling a 25-year-old precedent, determined a partner in an unmarried couple who has no biological or adoptive relationship with a child can be the child's parent entitled to custody or visitation:

These two cases call upon us to assess the continued vitality of the rule promulgated in Matter of Alison D. v Virginia M. (77 NY2d 651 [1991]) — namely that, in an unmarried couple, a partner without a biological or adoptive relation to a child is not that child's “parent” for purposes of standing to seek custody or visitation under Domestic Relations Law § 70 (a), notwithstanding their “established relationship with the child” (77 NY2d at 655). Petitioners in these cases, who similarly lack any biological or adoptive connection to the subject children, argue that they should have standing to seek custody and visitation pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 70 (a). We agree that, in light of more recently delineated legal principles, the definition of “parent” established by this Court 25 years ago in Alison D. has become unworkable when applied to increasingly varied familial relationships. Accordingly, today, we overrule Alison D. and hold that where a partner shows by clear and convincing evidence that the parties agreed to conceive a child and to raise the child together, the non-biological, non-adoptive partner has standing to seek visitation and custody under Domestic Relations Law § 70. * * *

Petitioners in the two cases before us have alleged that the parties entered into a pre-conception agreement to conceive and raise a child as co-parents. We hold that these allegations, if proven by clear and convincing evidence, are sufficient to establish standing. Because we necessarily decide these cases based on the facts presented to us, it would be premature for us to consider adopting a test for situations in which a couple did not enter into a pre-conception agreement. Accordingly, we do not now decide whether, in a case where a biological or adoptive parent consented to the creation of a parent-like relationship between his or her partner and child after conception, the partner can establish standing to seek visitation and custody. Matter of Brooke S.B. v Elizabeth A.C.C., 2016 NY Slip Op 05903, CtApp 8-30-16

FAMILY LAW (PARTNER IN AN UNMARRIED COUPLE WITH NO BIOLOGICAL OR ADOPTIVE RELATIONSHIP WITH A CHILD HAS STANDING AS A PARENT TO SEEK CUSTODY/VISITATION)/CUSTODY (PARTNER IN AN UNMARRIED COUPLE WITH NO BIOLOGICAL OR ADOPTIVE RELATIONSHIP WITH A CHILD HAS STANDING AS A PARENT TO SEEK CUSTODY/VISITATION)/VISITATION (PARTNER IN AN UNMARRIED COUPLE WITH NO BIOLOGICAL OR ADOPTIVE RELATIONSHIP WITH A CHILD HAS STANDING AS A PARENT TO SEEK CUSTODY/VISITATION)/PARENT (PARTNER IN AN UNMARRIED COUPLE WITH NO BIOLOGICAL OR ADOPTIVE RELATIONSHIP WITH A CHILD HAS STANDING AS A PARENT TO SEEK CUSTODY/VISITATION)

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