Matter of Glantz v. Kadoch
Docket 2022-09451
Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research
- Filed
- Jurisdiction
- New York
- Court
- Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
- Type
- Opinion
- Case type
- Family
- Disposition
- Remanded
- Citation
- 2026 NY Slip Op 02404
- Docket
- 2022-09451
Appeal from a Supreme Court order granting mother's petition for sole legal and physical custody and directing the father to pay temporary child support arrears in a Family Court Act article 6 proceeding
Summary
The Appellate Division reversed a Supreme Court order that granted the mother sole legal and physical custody of the parties' child and directed the father to pay temporary child support arrears. The appellate court held the Supreme Court erred by deciding custody without a plenary hearing and without making specific findings about the child's best interests. The case is remitted for a hearing and a new determination; meanwhile, the custody provision of the August 8, 2022 order remains in effect pending that hearing. The child-support arrears directive was vacated pending further proceedings.
Issues Decided
- Whether the Supreme Court properly granted sole legal and physical custody without holding a plenary hearing
- Whether the Supreme Court made adequate factual findings and articulated which best-interest factors were material to its custody determination
- Whether the Supreme Court properly directed the father to pay temporary child support arrears without appropriate procedural authority
Court's Reasoning
Custody matters are generally decided after a full hearing because disputed facts material to the child's best interests require resolution. The Supreme Court made a final custody determination without a hearing and failed to make specific findings about the best-interest factors or identify which factors it relied upon. Because those procedural and factual safeguards were missing, the court's custody decision could not stand and must be reconsidered after a hearing; similarly, the child-support arrears award was premature under the cited Family Court Act provision and controlling authority.
Authorities Cited
- S.L. v J.R.27 NY3d 558
- Family Court Act § 1113
- Family Court Act § 828(4)
- Matter of Baez-Delgadillo v Moya215 AD3d 829
Parties
- Respondent
- Yael Glantz
- Appellant
- Marc Kadoch
- Attorney
- Liberty Aldrich (attorney for the child); Eva D. Stein; Janet Neustaetter
- Judge
- Francesca E. Connolly, J.P.; Linda Christopher; Barry E. Warhit; Donna-Marie E. Golia, JJ.
Key Dates
- Child born
- 2012-01-01
- Mother filed custody petition
- 2020-09-01
- Supreme Court order
- 2022-08-08
- Appellate Division decision
- 2026-04-22
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Prepare for plenary hearing
Both parties should gather and exchange evidence and witness information relevant to the child's best interests and be ready to present testimony at the new hearing.
- 2
Consult family law counsel
Each party should consult an attorney to develop a hearing strategy focused on best-interest factors and to ensure procedural rights are protected.
- 3
Address temporary arrangements
Until the new hearing, the custody provision from August 8, 2022 remains in effect; parties should comply with that arrangement and document any disputes to present at the hearing.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the court decide?
- The appellate court reversed the custody and child-support portions of the Supreme Court's order and sent the case back for a hearing and a new custody determination, while keeping the existing custody arrangement in effect until that hearing.
- Who is affected by this decision?
- The child's parents — the mother (who sought sole custody) and the father (who was ordered to pay arrears) — and the child are directly affected because custody and support were at issue.
- What happens next?
- The Supreme Court, Kings County, must hold a hearing on the mother's petition and then make new findings and a custody determination consistent with the appellate decision.
- Can this decision be appealed further?
- Yes — as an appellate decision from the Appellate Division, the parties could seek leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals, subject to the Court of Appeals' rules and deadlines.
The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.
Full Filing Text
Matter of Glantz v Kadoch - 2026 NY Slip Op 02404 Matter of Glantz v Kadoch 2026 NY Slip Op 02404 April 22, 2026 Appellate Division, Second Department In the Matter of Yael Glantz, respondent, v Marc Kadoch, appellant. Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department Decided on April 22, 2026 2022-09451, (Docket No. V-104-21) Francesca E. Connolly, J.P. Linda Christopher Barry E. Warhit Donna-Marie E. Golia, JJ. Geanine Towers, Brooklyn, NY, for appellant. Liberty Aldrich, Brooklyn, NY (Eva D. Stein and Janet Neustaetter of counsel), attorney for the child. DECISION & ORDER In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (IDV Part) (Esther M. Morgenstern, J.), dated August 8, 2022. The order, without a hearing, granted the mother's petition for sole legal and physical custody of the parties' child and directed the father to pay temporary child support arrears. ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a hearing and new determination thereafter of the mother's petition for sole legal and physical custody of the parties' child; and it is further, ORDERED that pending the hearing and new determination of the mother's petition for sole legal and physical custody of the parties' child, the custody provision of the order dated August 8, 2022, shall remain in effect. The parties, who are married but have resided separately since 2014, are the parents of a child, born in 2012. In September 2020, the mother filed a petition for sole legal and physical custody of the child. In an order dated August 8, 2022, the Supreme Court, without a hearing, granted the mother's petition and directed the father to pay $3,600 in temporary child support arrears. The father appeals. As an initial matter, there is no merit to the contention of the attorney for the child that the appeal should be dismissed as untimely taken. There is no evidence in the record that the father was served with the order by a party or the attorney for the child, that the father received the order in court, or that the Supreme Court mailed the order to the father. Accordingly, it cannot be determined on the record before this Court whether the father filed his notice of appeal within the required time period ( see Family Ct Act § 1113; Matter of Mark M.L. [Shantia B.] , 210 AD3d 1093, 1094; Matter of Batts v Muhammad , 198 AD3d 750, 751). "Custody determinations should '[g]enerally be made only after a full and plenary hearing and inquiry'" ( Matter of Guy v Weichel , 173 AD3d 1028, 1030, quoting S.L. v J.R. , 27 NY3d 558, 563). "This general 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" ( S.L. v J.R. , 27 NY3d at 563; see Matter of Horoshko v Pasieshvili , 238 AD3d 1038, 1039; Matter of Baez-Delgadillo v Moya , 215 AD3d 829, 830). "While the general right to a hearing in custody and visitation cases is not absolute, where 'facts material to the best interest analysis, and the circumstances surrounding such facts, remain in dispute,' a hearing is required" ( Palazzola v Palazzola , 188 AD3d 1081, 1082, quoting S.L. v J.R. , 27 NY3d at 564). "'[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'" ( Matter of Horoshko v Pasieshvili , 238 AD3d at 1039, quoting S.L. v J.R. , 27 NY3d at 564). Here, the Supreme Court erred in making a final custody determination without a hearing ( see id. ; Matter of Baez-Delgadillo v Moya , 215 AD3d at 830). Furthermore, the court failed to make any specific findings of fact regarding the best interests of the child and failed to clearly articulate which factors were material to its determination ( see S.L. v J.R. , 27 NY3d at 564; Matter of Akaberi v Cruciani , 229 AD3d 541, 543). Accordingly, the matter must be remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a hearing and a new determination thereafter of the mother's petition for sole legal and physical custody of the child. Under the circumstances presented, the Supreme Court erred in directing the father to pay temporary child support arrears ( see Family Ct Act § 828[4]; Matter of Josefina O. v Francisco P. , 213 AD3d 1158, 1160). CONNOLLY, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, WARHIT and GOLIA, JJ., concur. ENTER: Darrell M. Joseph