Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
PAULA A., Petitioner-Respondent, v. JOSE A., Respondent-Appellant.
Orders, Family Court, Bronx County (Myrna Martinez-Perez, J.), entered on or about October 11, 2007, which granted petitioner and the parties' son a five-year order of protection against respondent, and determined that respondent violated a temporary order of protection and committed him to the New York City Department of Corrections for a term of 30 days, and order, same court and Judge, entered on or about October 11, 2007, which awarded custody of the parties' son to petitioner and directed that respondent's access to the child must be court authorized, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the matter remanded for a hearing on the family offense and custody petitions.
The court erred in issuing a custody order without the benefit of a hearing, where the best interests of the parties' son could be fully considered (see Matter of Linda J. v. Nakisha P., 10 A.D.3d 287, 288, 781 N.Y.S.2d 20 [2004]; Matter of Hudgins v. Goodley, 301 A.D.2d 524, 753 N.Y.S.2d 732 [2003] ).
Similarly, the court erred in issuing a permanent order of protection without having held a fact-finding or a dispositional hearing (see Matter of Shevlin v. Minas, 253 A.D.2d 435, 675 N.Y.S.2d 897 [1998] ), and its finding that aggravating circumstances existed is not supported by the record (see Family Court Act § 827[a][vii] ).
Furthermore, the court improperly held respondent in civil contempt in the absence of an evidentiary hearing, and because neither petitioner nor the court filed a petition alleging a violation of the temporary order of protection (see Family Court Act § 846; § 846-a; Matter of Janczuk v. Janczuk, 305 A.D.2d 680, 760 N.Y.S.2d 222 [2003]; see also James W.D. v. Sandra C., 44 A.D.3d 423, 424, 843 N.Y.S.2d 73 [2007] ). “Inasmuch as enduring consequences potentially flow from an order adjudicating a party in civil contempt, an appeal from that order is not rendered moot simply because the resulting prison sentence has already been served” (Matter of Bickwid v. Deutsch, 87 N.Y.2d 862, 863, 638 N.Y.S.2d 932, 662 N.E.2d 250 [1995] ).
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: March 17, 2009
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)