Street v. Palmer
| Decision Date | 28 October 2020 |
| Docket Number | 2019–13471,Docket Nos. V–6706–19, V–27002–19,2019–13470 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Kevin STREET, Appellant, v. Alexis PALMER, Respondent. (Proceeding No. 1) In the Matter of Alexis Palmer, Respondent, v. Kevin Street, Appellant. (Proceeding No. 2) |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Yasmin Daley Duncan, Brooklyn, NY, for appellant.
Kenneth M. Tuccillo, Hastings–on–Hudson, NY, for respondent.
Karen P. Simmons, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Janet Neustaetter of counsel), attorney for the child.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, HECTOR D. LASALLE, VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In related proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals, by permission, from two orders of the Family Court, Kings County (Rupert V. Barry, J.), both dated November 21, 2019. The orders, without a hearing, granted the mother's motion, in effect, to modify a temporary order of custody of the same court dated November 4, 2019, so as to award her temporary custody of the parties' child. By decision and order on motion dated January 6, 2020, this Court stayed enforcement of the orders dated November 21, 2019, pending hearing and determination of the appeals or issuance of a dispositional order in the underlying proceedings, whichever occurs first.
ORDERED that the orders dated November 21, 2019, are reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs or disbursements, the mother's motion, in effect, to modify the temporary order of custody dated November 4, 2019, so as to award her temporary custody of the parties' child is denied, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Kings County, for a determination of the petitions with all convenient speed.
The parties, who were never married, are the parents of a child born in October 2009. In March 2019, the father filed a petition seeking, inter alia, sole custody of the child. Subsequently, the mother filed a petition for sole custody of the child. During the pendency of the proceedings, the Family Court, in an order dated November 4, 2019, awarded temporary custody of the child to the father. Thereafter, in two orders dated November 21, 2019, the court granted the mother's motion, in effect, to modify the temporary order of custody so as to award her temporary custody of the child. The father appeals.
" ‘The paramount concern in any custody ... determination is the best interests of the child, under the totality of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Lederman v. Lederman
-
Olivo v. Olivo
...181 A.D.3d 605, 605, 117 N.Y.S.3d 619 ; Matter of Estime v. Civil, 168 A.D.3d 936, 937, 90 N.Y.S.3d 557 ). "Whether a family 131 N.Y.S.3d 635 offense was committed is a factual issue to be resolved by the Family Court, and that court's determination of credibility issues is entitled to grea......
-
Rosado v. Cornielle
...custody to the father was not in the best interests of the child under the totality of the circumstances (see Matter of Street v. Palmer, 187 A.D.3d 1197, 131 N.Y.S.3d 635 ). The mother had not presented her evidence and there were many controverted issues.Accordingly, the order must be rev......
-
K.A. v. N.Q. (In re a Proceeding Under Article 6 of Family Court Act)
... ... be based on the best interests of the child, under the ... totality of the circumstances. (See Matter of Street v ... Palmer, 187 A.D.3d 1197, 1198 [2d Dept 2020]; see ... also, Matter of Sullivan v. Moore, 95 A.D.3d ... 1223, 1223 [2d Dept ... ...