Matter of Patrick

2 Citing cases

  1. Viscuso v. Viscuso

    129 A.D.3d 1679 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)   Cited 8 times

    The record establishes that the mother introduced the materials in evidence several months before the trial ended, and she therefore had more than ample access to the materials in time to use them at trial. Furthermore, she had the use of the materials for cross-examination purposes, and thus there was no denial of due process (see Matter of Patrick H., 229 A.D.2d 682, 683, 645 N.Y.S.2d 166 ). The mother's final contention in appeal No. 1 is that the court's temporary order of primary physical custody was improperly entered without a full hearing in the midst of the trial.

  2. In the Matter of Lisa "Z"

    278 A.D.2d 674 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)   Cited 20 times

    We find that the record supports Family Court's conclusion that Steiner was a fact, not an expert, witness. Notably, on direct examination, Steiner's testimony was limited to her observations of the mother's participation in the program (see, Matter of Patrick H. [Deborah N.], 229 A.D.2d 682, 683). She was not asked on direct examination to render an expert opinion or otherwise testify from her expertise.