Court Filings

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed Family Court orders that found respondent mother neglected her eldest child and derivatively neglected two other children. The court concluded, based on a preponderance of the evidence, that the mother choked the eldest child, pulled and ripped the child's shirt, and caused scratches; the child’s out-of-court statement was corroborated by a caseworker’s observation and photographs. The court also found the mother committed acts of domestic violence during the same incident and that the other children were present, supporting derivative neglect because the mother’s conduct created a substantial risk of harm.

The Appellate Division reviewed Family Court's partial denial of a mother's petition to remove a prohibition on her partner's contact with her child. The court found the mother's sobriety constituted a sufficient change in circumstances to permit a full best-interests review, but concluded Family Court reasonably kept the no-contact provision in place because the child remained affected by the mother's past alcohol-related incidents and expressed reluctance to see the partner. The Appellate Division modified the order to allow the mother to seek removal of the prohibition after six months without proving a new change, and otherwise affirmed.

The Appellate Division affirmed Family Court's July 2, 2024 order modifying custody and parenting time for a child born in 2011. Family Court awarded primary physical custody to the father, granted the grandparents limited monthly visitation plus additional holiday and summer time, and denied the mother's request to convert supervised parenting time to unsupervised time. The appellate court found the visitation schedule supported by the child's best interests given travel burdens and the child's anxiety, and upheld supervised parenting time because the mother had an inconsistent parenting history and was still on a high methadone dosage without other supports.

The Appellate Division (Third Department) affirmed Family Court's March 12, 2025 order terminating the mother's parental rights after adjudicating the child permanently neglected. The child, born in 2019, has autism and developmental delays and has been in foster care since May 2023 following the mother's arrest for driving while intoxicated with the child. The court found the mother repeatedly failed to meaningfully engage in or complete substance abuse treatment, did not make significant progress toward reunification, and that termination — allowing adoption by foster parents who provided stable, therapeutic care — served the child's best interests.

The Appellate Division, Third Department affirmed Family Court's March 15, 2023 order awarding the child's maternal grandmother sole legal and physical custody. The father appealed only arguing the judge abandoned neutrality and acted as an advocate for the grandmother. The appellate court found the issue unpreserved because the father did not raise it below, and in any event the record shows the judge's active questioning was appropriate to assist a pro se petitioner and to elicit relevant information. The court concluded there was no judicial bias and affirmed the custody order.

The Appellate Division reversed Family Court's denial of a motion to vacate an order of protection entered by default against Jonathan U. The Family Court had removed respondent's counsel from the courtroom when Jonathan failed to appear for an in-person hearing and declined available alternatives (such as allowing a virtual appearance). The appellate court held that this conduct deprived respondent of the fundamental right to be heard, so the default order of protection was vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

The Appellate Division reversed part of a divorce judgment that enforced a 2015 postnuptial agreement and remitted the case for a hearing. The defendant had sought to set aside the agreement, alleging limited English, that his lawyer did not review the document and was later disbarred for fraud, and that he thought he was signing a business document. The appellate court found triable issues about whether the agreement was fair and about the circumstances of its execution, so the trial court's denial without a hearing could not stand and a new hearing is required to determine whether the postnuptial agreement should be set aside.

The Appellate Division affirmed a Family Court order modifying custody and access in related Family Court Act articles 6 and 8 proceedings. After a hearing and an in-camera interview with the child, the Family Court found the father committed assault in the third degree and menacing in the second and third degrees against the child, awarded the mother final decision-making authority, limited the father's parenting time to therapeutic supervised access, denied the father's cross-petition to change custody, and issued a two-year order of protection for the child. The appellate court found no deprivation of the father's right to counsel and found no reversible error.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed a Family Court order resolving where a child should attend school. The parents, who share joint legal custody and alternate weekly parenting time, could not agree on school district enrollment. After a hearing, Family Court granted the father's petition to enroll the child in the South Huntington Union Free School District and denied the mother's petition to enroll the child in the Hauppauge Union Free School District. The appellate court found the Family Court's best-interests determination had a sound and substantial basis, citing the child's benefit from a diverse environment and likely residential stability with the father.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed an amended Family Court order finding the mother neglected one child by inflicting excessive corporal punishment and derivatively neglected the other child. Appeals challenging the release of the children to the father and the dismissal of the mother's custody and visitation petitions were dismissed as academic because subsequent Virginia proceedings and the expiration of supervision rendered those parts moot. The court upheld the directive that the mother submit to a comprehensive mental health evaluation, finding it to be in the children's best interests and supported by the evidence and credibility findings below.

The Appellate Division dismissed an appeal from a Family Court order that granted the respondent's unopposed motion to dismiss a Family Court Act article 8 petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Family Court concluded the parties did not have an intimate relationship under Family Court Act § 812(1)(e). Because the dismissal order was entered after the petitioner defaulted and CPLR 5511 bars appeals entered on a default, the Second Department held the petitioner must first move to vacate the default before seeking review, so the appeal was dismissed with costs.

The Appellate Division affirmed a Family Court order granting joint custody of a child to the father and the maternal aunt after a combined permanency and fact-finding hearing. The mother appealed, arguing the court failed to ensure she knowingly waived her right to counsel when her appointed lawyer was relieved. The court found that although the Family Court did not conduct the required detailed inquiry at the time of counsel’s withdrawal, the mother’s pattern of conduct — frequent failures to appear, multiple successive attorneys, and delays — supported a finding she forfeited her right to assigned counsel, and the evidence would not have changed the outcome.

The Appellate Division affirmed Family Court orders awarding sole residential and legal custody of a child (born 2013) to the child's paternal aunt and denying the mother's custody petition. The aunt had cared for the child continuously since February 2018 after the mother was arrested and incarcerated and had filed for custody in October 2018; the mother filed her own custody petition in 2021. The court found the aunt proved "extraordinary circumstances" that overcame the parent's superior right and, after considering the child's best interests, concluded the aunt was better able to provide stability and meet the child's needs.

The Appellate Division reversed a Family Court finding that the father willfully violated a child support order and vacated the related commitment order, remitting the case for a new hearing. The court concluded the father was deprived of his statutory and constitutional right to counsel because the Support Magistrate failed to secure a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver or to inquire about assigning new counsel after the father's assigned lawyer was relieved. Because the record shows the father protested lack of counsel and lacked basic understanding of proceedings, reversal was required regardless of the merits.

The Appellate Division affirmed a divorce judgment, modifying it to reduce the required life insurance the husband must carry from $750,000 to an amount equal to the remaining unpaid maintenance and allowing a declining term policy. The court upheld the equitable distribution, the sale of marital real estate, the maintenance award (including using the statutory income cap), and the attorney-fee award, rejecting claims of dissipation and insufficient property valuation. The cross-appeal succeeded only on the life-insurance security amount, which the court held should track the unpaid maintenance balance and decline as payments are made.

The Appellate Division dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal in a divorce action concerning the equitable distribution of marital property. The appeals arose from a September 19, 2024 Supreme Court order in Livingston County that, among other things, distributed the parties' marital assets. The appellate court issued a unanimous order dismissing both matters without costs and referenced a companion memorandum decision in a related appeal. No substantive reversal or modification of the lower court's distribution is contained in this short order.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department dismissed an appeal by defendant Bradford Morse challenging a Supreme Court order that, among other things, approved compensation for the Attorney for the Children in a matrimonial action. The court held the appeal could not proceed as of right because the challenged order did not decide a motion made on notice under CPLR 5701(a) and therefore is not immediately appealable. The panel declined to treat the notice of appeal as a permission-to-appeal application and denied discretionary review.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department affirmed Family Court's order continuing custody of the child with Monroe County Department of Human Services. The mother had sought return of her child under Family Court Act § 1028 after a temporary removal. The court found petitioner proved that returning the child would present an imminent risk to the child's life or health because the mother suffers from untreated, severe mental health conditions, experiences frequent violent visions that sometimes include the child, lacks insight, does not take medication or seek therapy, and engages in unsafe behavior tied to those visions. The appellate court found a sound and substantial basis in the record for that determination.

The Appellate Division reversed Family Court's dismissal of a mother's petition to modify a consent visitation order and remanded for further proceedings. The mother sought to change a consent order that granted joint custody with primary placement to the father and limited the mother to supervised agency visitation once per month and additional supervised visits “as agreed.” The appellate court found the mother proved a change in circumstances because the agency placement was effectively unavailable and the father refused to allow the agreed additional visitation, and held the case must proceed to a full hearing on whether modification would be in the children's best interests.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department affirmed a Family Court order that granted the petitioner's written objection to a support magistrate's October 7, 2024 order in a Family Court child support proceeding. The appeal was taken by the respondent from the Family Court's November 27, 2024 order. The appellate court unanimously affirmed without costs, signaling it found no reversible error in the Family Court's disposition of the objection to the support magistrate's ruling.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department reversed a Family Court order that dismissed the mother's custody petition and awarded joint custody after the mother failed to appear at a hearing. The court held that Family Court did not adequately ensure the mother knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived her right to counsel before allowing her to proceed pro se. Because the right to counsel in child custody proceedings is fundamental, the court reinstated the mother's petition and remitted the case to Family Court for a new hearing to allow a proper waiver inquiry and further proceedings.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department affirmed Family Court's March 17, 2025 order in a child-protective proceeding under Family Court Act article 10, which had found that respondent Thomas M. neglected the child Aleena M. The appeal challenged that neglect determination; the appellate court issued a short per curiam affirmance, adopting the reasoning set out in its separate memorandum in Matter of Akeem M. (Thomas M.). The court thus left undisturbed the Family Court's findings and disposition holding Thomas M. neglectful.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department affirmed a Family Court order that found Thomas M. neglected the child Ahmilia M. This appeal challenged the Family Court’s neglect determination in a proceeding brought by the Onondaga County Department of Children and Family Services under Family Court Act article 10. The appellate court relied on the same reasoning and memorandum it used in a companion case (Matter of Akeem M. (Thomas M.)) and concluded there were no reversible errors, so the Family Court’s ruling stands and costs were denied.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department affirmed Family Court's order finding Heather H. neglected her child and placing her under the supervision of the Wayne County Department of Social Services. The appeal challenged the fact-finding that the mother's mental illness and illicit drug use caused neglect, but the appellate court held petitioner proved neglect by a preponderance of the evidence. The court relied on testimony and records showing the mother experienced delusions and paranoid behavior that placed the child's physical, mental, or emotional condition in imminent danger of impairment, and affirmed the dispositional supervision order.

The Appellate Division reviewed a Family Court order that found a mother abused and neglected her child. The court unanimously vacated the abuse finding against the mother but affirmed the neglect finding. The court concluded the father, who lived with the family, inflicted excessive corporal punishment and sexual abuse, and the mother knew or should have known and failed to protect the child. The appellate court also upheld a neglect finding based on the mother's threat to the child with a knife, by conforming the pleadings to the proof, but found the evidence insufficient to support a finding that the mother committed abuse.

The Appellate Division reversed Family Court’s May 17, 2024 order that modified a 2015 Texas custody and visitation order and granted the mother sole physical and legal custody. The court held that, under New York’s version of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), New York lacked authority to modify a prior Texas custody order because Texas retained exclusive, continuing jurisdiction and the father continues to reside in Texas. The court also found that Family Court failed to properly invoke temporary emergency jurisdiction because it did not communicate with the Texas court or limit the duration of its order, so the order was vacated and the case remanded for proper UCCJEA procedures.

The Appellate Division affirmed a Family Court order granting the petitioner nonparent guardianship of A.G., a child placed with the petitioner at birth in August 2018, and dismissed the parents' petitions for custody. The court found the petitioner demonstrated extraordinary circumstances and had been the child’s exclusive caregiver, meeting the child’s needs and fostering a strong bond. The parents had only sporadic or supervised contact, failed to provide financial support or stable housing, and did not show they could plan for the child's return. The court held the guardianship was in the child’s best interests.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed a Family Court order that, after a hearing, granted the mother's petition for sole legal and physical custody of the parties' child (born 2022) and denied the father's petition for joint physical custody. The appellate court found the Family Court's best-interest analysis — emphasizing the mother's greater ability to provide stability, overall well-being, and to foster the child's relationship with the other parent — had a sound and substantial basis in the record. The court also held the Family Court did not abuse its discretion by declining to appoint an attorney for the very young child.

The Appellate Division reviewed Family Court proceedings in which the Administration for Children's Services alleged the father neglected two children. The appeals from the fact-finding and dispositional orders were dismissed in part, and the court affirmed the order of disposition insofar as reviewed. Because the dispositional order was entered on the father's default and has expired by its own terms, appellate review was limited to whether the father neglected the children. The court held that, by a preponderance of the evidence, the father's lack of insight into ongoing mental-health issues and his bizarre and irrational behavior placed the children at imminent risk, supporting the neglect finding.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed a Family Court order finding that the mother neglected her child by inflicting excessive corporal punishment. ACS brought an Article 10 neglect proceeding alleging the mother repeatedly physically, verbally, and emotionally abused the child and on one occasion bit the child's finger, causing an infected human bite mark. The court concluded ACS proved neglect by a preponderance of the evidence, crediting the Family Court's credibility findings and finding the child's out-of-court statements were corroborated by medical records and ACS observations.