New York Family Law Blog
A New York Family Lawyer said in related proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County, which, without a hearing, denied his petition, in effect, to modify the custody and child visitation provisions of a judgment of divorce of the Supreme Court, Queens County, so as to award him sole custody of the subject child, and denied his petition, in effect, to hold the mother in contempt based on her alleged willful violation of a child visitation order of the same court.
A Nassau County Family lawyer said that three weeks after denying the father’s petition for sole custody of the subject child, the Family Court conducted a full evidentiary hearing on the mother’s petition for custody. Thereafter, the Family Court issued a final order of custody and child visitation granting the parties joint legal custody, with residential custody to the mother.
“It is a fundamental principle of our jurisprudence that the power of a court to declare the law only arises out of, and is limited to, determining the rights of persons which are actually controverted in a particular case pending before the tribunal”. “In general an appeal will be considered moot unless the rights of the parties will be directly affected by the determination of the appeal and the interest of the parties is an immediate consequence of the judgment”.
A New York Divorce Attorney said under the circumstances herein, the Family Court’s order, has rendered academic the father’s appeal from so much of the order, as denied his petition for sole custody.
The Family Court properly denied the father’s petition, in effect, to hold the mother in contempt based on her alleged violation of certain provisions of a child visitation order. The father failed to allege that the mother significantly defeated, impaired, or prejudiced his child visitation rights;
In view of the foregoing, the Court Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order as denied the father’s petition, in effect, to modify the custody and child visitation provisions of the parties’ judgment of divorce is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements.
A Nassau County Family Lawyer said in another case, a matrimonial action, the parties were divorced by judgment, the father appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, which granted those branches of the mother’s cross motion which were pursuant to CPLR 510 (3) and, in effect, Family Court Act § 651 (a), to transfer the disposition of his motion, inter alia, to modify the custody provisions contained in a stipulation of settlement, from the Supreme Court, Nassau County, to the Family Court, Suffolk County.
A Staten Island Family Lawyer said that the parties’ judgment of divorce, which incorporated, but did not merge, a stipulation of settlement, provided that the Supreme Court would retain jurisdiction of the matter concurrently with the Family Court for the purpose, inter alia, of making further determinations with respect to support, custody, or child visitation. From the time that the judgment of divorce was entered, the Family Court, Suffolk County, has heard at least one petition to modify the child visitation schedule with respect to the parties’ child, and has appointed a Law Guardian for the child. Both parties reside in Suffolk County, and the child’s therapist practices there.
The father nonetheless moved in the Supreme Court, Nassau County, inter alia, to transfer custody of the child from the mother to him. The mother cross-moved to change venue from Nassau County to Suffolk County and to refer the matter to the Family Court, Suffolk County. The Supreme Court granted the cross motion and directed that the issues raised in the father’s motion be determined in Suffolk County.
The Court affirmed.
Inasmuch as the Family Court, Suffolk County, is familiar with the issues in the matter, the child and both of the parents reside in Suffolk County, and it appears that all of the material witnesses are in Suffolk County, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the mother’s cross motion. The father’s argument that the Supreme Court lacked the power to grant the motion is without merit.
When a marriage turns sour, a party may seek the remedy of divorce to make things better. Here in Stephen Bilkis and Associates, our Nassau County Divorce attorneys will give you an advice after determining if a remedy of divorce is the only way to avail to end your marriage. Our Nassau County Family lawyers are likewise always ready to help you in other matters involving family life.