David A.A. v. Maryann A.

41 A.D.3d 1300, 837 N.Y.S.2d 479
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 8, 2007
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 41 A.D.3d 1300 (David A.A. v. Maryann A.) 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
David A.A. v. Maryann A., 41 A.D.3d 1300, 837 N.Y.S.2d 479 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Livingston County (Ronald A. Cicoria, J.), entered September 6, 2005 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order granted petitioner’s motion for a default order and awarded sole legal custody of the parties’ child to petitioner and visitation to respondent.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, petitioner’s motion is denied and the matter is remitted to Family Court, Livingston County, for a hearing on the petition.

Memorandum: Family Court erred in granting petitioner’s motion for a default order awarding sole legal custody of the parties’ child to petitioner. Respondent’s failure to appear at the hearing on the petition does not automatically constitute a default (see Matter of Shemeco D., 265 AD2d 860 [1999]; Matter of Kwasi S., 221 AD2d 1029 [1995]), particularly “where, as here, respondent[ ] did appear by [her] assigned counsel who objected to petitioner’s default motion and who, given the opportunity, could have proceeded to a hearing and defended [her] absent client[ ]” (Matter of Cassandra M., 260 AD2d 961, 963 [1999]). Moreover, “[ujnless there is sufficient evidence before the court to enable it to undertake a comprehensive independent review of the child[ ]’s best interests . . . , a determination of a custody matter should only be made after a full evidentiary hearing” (Miller-Glass v Glass, 237 AD2d 723, 724 [1997]). The record does not contain sufficient evidence supporting the award of sole legal custody to petitioner. We therefore reverse the or[1301]*1301der, deny petitioner’s motion and remit the matter to Family Court for a hearing on the petition. Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Martoche, Smith, Fahey and Green, JJ.

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

Related

Matter of Jayden M. (Carlos M.)
2025 NY Slip Op 02490 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
Matter of Reardon v. Krause
196 N.Y.S.3d 829 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)
Matter of Hilton v. Hilton
2019 NY Slip Op 4572 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
MILLS, ALLYSON A. v. RIEMAN, JOEL T.
128 A.D.3d 1486 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
MANNING, KATHLEEN S. v. SOBOTKA, STANLEY P.
107 A.D.3d 1638 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
ERIE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SE, RVICES v. THOMPSON, ANDREW R.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012
Erie County Department of Social Services ex rel. Wiser v. Thompson
91 A.D.3d 1327 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Balls v. Doliver
72 A.D.3d 1618 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Pollard v. Pollard
63 A.D.3d 1628 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
In re Isaiah H.
61 A.D.3d 1372 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Hopkins v. Gelia
56 A.D.2d 1286 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Kenneth M. v. Monique M.
48 A.D.3d 1174 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
41 A.D.3d 1300, 837 N.Y.S.2d 479, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/david-aa-v-maryann-a-nyappdiv-2007.