Miller-Glass v. Glass

11 Citing cases

  1. Hannah Mm. v. Elizabeth Nn.

    151 A.D.3d 1193 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)   Cited 9 times

    Family Court accepted the unproven allegations of the petition and the stipulation by the aunt and the mother, none of which provided a factual basis for the custody determination. We also note that, in regard to the best interests of the child analysis, Family Court was not presented with evidence " to enable it to undertake a comprehensive independent review of the children's best interests" (Millerโ€“Glass v. Glass, 237 A.D.2d 723, 724, 653 N.Y.S.2d 982 [1997] ; see Matter of Varner v. Glass, 130 A.D.3d at 1216, 13 N.Y.S.3d 671 ). Mindful that the ultimate issue in this case is the best interests of the children (see Matter of Donahue v. Buisch, 265 A.D.2d 601, 603, 696 N.Y.S.2d 254 [1999] ), and that visitation with a noncustodial parent is presumed to be in their best interests (see Matter of Owens v. Chamorro, 114 A.D.3d 1037, 1039, 981 N.Y.S.2d 163 [2014] ), we find that the father's challenges to the amended petition constitute meritorious defenses.

  2. Yvette Giovanni v. Hall

    86 A.D.3d 676 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)   Cited 9 times

    Also weighing in favor of a full hearing is the fact that the prior two orders were entered upon consent of the parties, and it appears that there has yet to be a plenary hearing regarding the custody of the parties' children and the issue of visitation. Consequently, we reverse and remit to Family Court so that a hearing can be held and, following which, Family Court can "undertake a comprehensive independent review of the children's best interests" ( Miller-Glass v Glass, 237 AD2d 723, 724; see Matter of Williams v Williams, 35 AD3d 1098, 1099-1100; Matter of Cornell v Cornell, 8 AD3d at 719-720). Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs, and matter remitted to the Family Court of Greene County for further proceedings not inconsistent with this Court's decision.

  3. In re David A.A

    41 A.D.3d 1300 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)   Cited 13 times

    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; Matter of Kwasi S., 221 AD2d 1029), 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). Moreover, "[u]nless 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). The record does not contain sufficient evidence supporting the award of sole legal custody to petitioner.

  4. Brim v. Combs

    25 A.D.3d 691 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)   Cited 16 times

    Here, the mother's net worth statement and her extensive testimony at the hearing established that her expenses related to the child were $19,148.74 per month, exclusive of the child's educational, health, medical, dental, school transportation, school supplies/books, security, and summer camp expenses, which in any case are paid by the father. Notably, this amount is deemed admitted as fact by the father due to his failure to comply with the compulsory financial disclosure requirements of Family Court Act ยง 424-a ( see Miller-Glass v. Glass, 237 AD2d 723, 724-725). Accordingly, the Family Court erred in awarding $35,000 in monthly child support to the mother.

  5. Brim v. Combs

    17 A.D.3d 361 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)   Cited 1 times

    Here, the mother's net worth statement and her extensive testimony at the hearing established that her expenses related to the child were $21,782.08 per month, exclusive of the child's educational, health, medical, dental, extracurricular activity, transportation, security, and summer camp expenses, which in any case are paid by the father. Notably, this amount is deemed admitted as fact by the father due to his failure to comply with the compulsory financial disclosure requirements of Family Court Act ยง 424-a ( see Miller-Glass v. Glass, 237 AD2d 723, 724-725). Accordingly, the Family Court erred in awarding $35,000 in monthly child support to the mother.

  6. Thomas v. Thomas

    271 A.D.2d 726 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)   Cited 9 times

    Based on the foregoing, we conclude that Supreme Court fully considered the issues surrounding relocation in rendering its determination of the best interest of the child. Although the court should have conducted a hearing prior to permitting temporary relocation (cf., Miller-Glass v. Glass, 237 A.D.2d 723;Matter of Klang v. Klang, 235 A.D.2d 476; Matter of Davies v. Davies, 223 A.D.2d 884), we find that under the circumstances of this case reversal is not warranted. Supreme Court's temporary order provided for the continuation of the provisions of the original Family Court order with respect to primary physical custody and, subsequent to relocation, defendant was permitted liberal visitation. We therefore find no impairment of defendant's "meaningful access" to his son (Matter of Tropea v. Tropea, supra, at 739) during the interval prior to Supreme Court's final determination.

  7. Donohue v. Donohue

    258 A.D.2d 498 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)   Cited 3 times

    Although a change in custody would require recalculation of the parties' child support obligations to accommodate a split custody arrangement ( see, e.g., Riseley v. Riseley, 208 A.D.2d 132; Matter of Kerr v. Bell, 178 A.D.2d 1), we conclude that under the circumstances of this case, the court did not err in denying the defendant interim relief. Continuation of the child support obligation set forth in the divorce judgment would permit the wife to maintain the standard of living formerly enjoyed by the children pending a final determination of custody, and the defendant failed to establish that continuation of such payments would cause him hardship. Furthermore, the, defendant failed to submit a net worth statement as required by 22 NYCRR 202.16 (k) (2) ( see, Miller-Glass v. Glass, 237 A.D.2d 723; Tacconi v. Tacconi, 197 A.D.2d 929). We note that the defendant has not appealed from the order entered after the custody hearing which prospectively reduced his child support obligation.

  8. Matter of Kenneth H. v. Barbara G

    256 A.D.2d 1029 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)   Cited 10 times

    Petitioner appeals, primarily contending that Family Court erred in dismissing the petition without permitting him an opportunity to present evidence in support of the petition. "[T]he best interests of the children is the paramount consideration in determining whether visitation should be permitted by a parent who has committed abuse" ( Matter of Tanya T. [Steven U.], 252 A.D.2d 677, 679, lv denied 92 N.Y.2d 812). A determination of the children's best interests should only be made after a full evidentiary hearing unless there is sufficient information before the court to enable it to undertake an independent comprehensive review of the children's best interests ( see, Matter of Hermann v. Chakurmanian, 243 A.D.2d 1003, 1004; Miller-Glass v. Glass, 237 A.D.2d 723, 724; Matter of Oliver S. v. Chemung County Dept. of Social Servs., 162 A.D.2d 820). Here, although Family Court was presented with a report from one of the children's therapists, the record before us does not indicate that the court was furnished with information from treatment professionals pertaining to the other two children or information regarding petitioner's treatment progress.

  9. Matter of Baker v. Ratoon

    251 A.D.2d 921 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)   Cited 17 times

    To the extent that this argument relates to the August 14, 1997 order of suspension, a moot question, it will not be considered. To the extent that respondent is arguing that the supervised visits constitute an unlawful suspension of his visitation rights, it is clear that a determination with regard to visitation rights involves what is in the best interest of a child ( see, Miller-Glass v. Glass, 237 A.D.2d 723, 724). Family Court may order a psychological examination in order to determine visitation or custody (Family Ct Act ยง 251). Respondent agreed to such an examination.

  10. Lande v. Lande

    239 A.D.2d 563 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)   Cited 3 times

    The appellant demanded a hearing with respect to the reasonableness of the Law Guardian's fees. Under the circumstances of this case, that issue cannot be determined without a hearing ( see, e.g., Kelly v. Kelly, 223 A.D.2d 625). However, since the appellant failed to make any financial disclosure to the court, she was properly denied a hearing as to her ability to pay ( see, Miller-Glass v. Glass, 237 A.D.2d 723; Mockler v. Mockler, 205 A.D.2d 510). We decline to review the question of whether the appellant was properly directed to turn over her medical records, since that relief was granted in prior orders from which no appeal was taken ( see, Damen v. North Shore Univ. Hosp., 234 A.D.2d 255; Haibi v. Haibi, 171 A.D.2d 842) or from which the appeal taken by the appellant was dismissed for failure to prosecute ( see, Bray v. Cox, 38 N.Y.2d 350, 355).