Barnes v. McKown

74 A.D.3d 1914, 903 N.Y.S.2d 843
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 18, 2010
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 74 A.D.3d 1914 (Barnes v. McKown) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Barnes v. McKown, 74 A.D.3d 1914, 903 N.Y.S.2d 843 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Ontario County (Craig J. Doran, J.), entered October 22, 2008. The order, among other things, dismissed the petition to modify a custody order.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously modified on the law by vacating the second ordering paragraph and as modified the order is affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Petitioner mother, who resides in Florida, commenced this proceeding seeking to modify an order granting sole custody of the parties’ child to respondent father, who resides in New York. She contends that Family Court erred in refusing to allow her to testify at the custody hearing by electronic means because the court was required to allow her to do so. We reject that contention. Indeed, pursuant to the express language of Domestic Relations Law § 75-j (2), “[a] court of this state may permit an individual residing in another state to be deposed or to testify by . . . electronic means before a designated court or at another location in that state” (emphasis added). Contrary to the alternative contention of the mother, the court was not required to allow her to testify by electronic means as a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 USC § 12101 et seq.), inasmuch as she failed to meet her burden of demonstrating that she has a covered disability under that act (see generally Matter of Abram v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 71 AD3d 1471 [2010]).

We note, however, that both the attorney for the child and the father correctly conceded at oral argument of this appeal that [1915]*1915the court erred in making any future filings by the mother contingent on her submission of medical proof establishing her ability to travel to New York. We therefore modify the order accordingly. Present—Smith, J.P., Lindley, Sconiers, Pine and Gorski, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Matter of Jaydalee P. (Codilee R.)
2017 NY Slip Op 9075 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
B., THOMAS, MTR. OF
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016
In re Thomas B.
139 A.D.3d 1402 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Barnes v. McKown
179 L. Ed. 2d 331 (Supreme Court, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
74 A.D.3d 1914, 903 N.Y.S.2d 843, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barnes-v-mckown-nyappdiv-2010.