Hall, Jason L. v. Hawthorne, Nina E., 99 A.D.3d 1237 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012). · Go Syfert
Search
Hall, Jason L. v. Hawthorne, Nina E., 99 A.D.3d 1237 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
16 citation events (16 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: S.P. v. M.P. (nyappdiv, 2022-07-08)
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) S.P. v. M.P.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2022 · confidence medium
The court properly limited the proof to incidents that occurred after the parties entered into the CA agreement ( see Matter of Hall v Hawthorne , 99 AD3d 1237, 1238 [4th Dept 2012]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ordona v. Campbell
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
“It is well settled that there is ‘an exception to the hearsay rule in custody cases involving allegations of abuse and neglect of a child, based on the Legislature’s intent to protect children from abuse and neglect as evidenced in Family [Court] Act § 1046 (a) (vi)’. . . , where, as here, the statements are corroborated” (Matter of Mateo v Tuttle, 26 AD3d 731, 732 [2006]; see Matter of Sutton v Sutton, 74 AD3d 1838, 1840 [2010]; cf. Matter of Hall v Hawthorne, 99 AD3d 1237, 1238 [2012]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ordona v. Campbell
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
“It is well settled that there is ‘an exception to the hearsay rule in custody cases involving allegations of abuse and neglect of a child, based on the Legislature’s intent to protect children from abuse and neglect as evidenced in Family [Court] Act § 1046 (a) (vi)’. . . , where, as here, the statements are corroborated” (Matter of Mateo v Tuttle, 26 AD3d 731, 732 [2006]; see Matter of Sutton v Sutton, 74 AD3d 1838, 1840 [2010]; cf. Matter of Hall v Hawthorne, 99 AD3d 1237, 1238 [2012]).
discussed Cited "see" Matter of Chance C. (Jennifer S.)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2018 · signal: see · confidence high
Although "[i]t is well settled that there is an exception to the hearsay rule in custody cases involving allegations of abuse and neglect of a child . . . where . . . the statements are corroborated" ( Matter of Sutton v Sutton , 74 AD3d 1838 , 1840 [4th Dept 2010] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Hall v Hawthorne , 99 AD3d 1237, 1238 [4th Dept 2012]; Matter of Mateo v Tuttle , 26 AD3d 731, 732 [4th Dept 2006]), "repetition of an accusation by a child does not corroborate the child's prior account of [neglect]" ( Matter of Nicole V. , 71 NY2d 112, 124 [1987]; see Matter of Bro…
discussed Cited "see" Cormier v. Clarke
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · signal: see · confidence high
There is a presumption that visitation with the noncustodial parent is in the child’s best interests (see Matter of Granger v Misercola, 21 NY3d 86, 90 [2013]; Matter of Nathaniel T., 97 AD2d 973 , 974 [1983]), and a “parent’s incarceration, by itself, does not vitiate” that presumption (Matter of Flood v Flood, 63 AD3d 1197, 1198 [2009]; see Matter of Fewell v Ratzel, 99 AD3d 1237, 1237 [2012]).
discussed Cited "see" CORMIER, MICHELLE v. CLARKE, ROXANNE
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · signal: see · confidence high
There is a presumption that visitation with the noncustodial parent is in the child’s best interests (see Matter of Granger v Misercola, ___ NY3d ___, ___ [Apr. 30, 2013]; Matter of Nathaniel T., 97 AD2d 973, 974 ), and a “parent’s incarceration, by itself, does not vitiate” that presumption (Matter of Flood v Flood, 63 AD3d 1197, 1198 ; see Matter of Fewell v Ratzel, 99 AD3d 1237, 1237 ).
discussed Cited "see" Cormier v. Clarke
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · signal: see · confidence high
There is a presumption that visitation with the noncustodial parent is in the child’s best interests (see Matter of Granger v Misercola, 21 NY3d 86, 90 [2013]; Matter of Nathaniel T., 97 AD2d 973 , 974 [1983]), and a “parent’s incarceration, by itself, does not vitiate” that presumption (Matter of Flood v Flood, 63 AD3d 1197, 1198 [2009]; see Matter of Fewell v Ratzel, 99 AD3d 1237, 1237 [2012]).
discussed Cited "see" BROWN, CLARENCE R. v. DIVELBLISS, MELODY M.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · signal: see · confidence high
“It is generally presumed to be in a child’s best interest to have visitation *1370 with his or her noncustodial parent and the fact that a parent is incarcerated will not, by itself, render visitation inappropriate” (Matter of Cierra L.B. v Richard L.R., 43 AD3d 1416, 1416-1417 [2007] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Fewell v Ratzel, 99 AD3d 1237, 1237 [2012]; Matter of Crowell v Livziey, 20 AD3d 923, 923 [2005]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Jason L. Hall, Respondent,
v.
Nina E. Hawthorne, Appellant
CAF 11-01897.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Oct 5, 2012.
99 A.D.3d 1237
Cited by 9 opinions  |  Published

[*1238] Memorandum: Nina E. Hawthorne, the respondent in appeal No. 1 and the petitioner in appeal Nos. 2 and 3 (mother), appeals from three orders entered in proceedings brought pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The orders granted the petition of Jason L. Hall, the petitioner in appeal No. 1 and the respondent in appeal Nos. 2 and 3 (father), to enforce a prior order of custody and visitation entered upon stipulation of the parties on December 12, 2008 (2008 custody and visitation order) and dismissed the mother’s petitions for a modification of custody and visitation and for enforcement of an order of visitation.

The mother contends that reversal is required based on Family Court’s refusal to allow her to present evidence that the father allegedly abused the child. We reject that contention. The court properly limited the proof to incidents that occurred after the 2008 custody and visitation order was entered (see Matter of Risman v Linke, 235 AD2d 861, 861-862 [1997]; see generally Matter of Tarrant v Ostrowski, 96 AD3d 1580, 1581 [2012]). Moreover, although “[i]t is well settled that there is an exception to the hearsay rule in custody cases involving allegations of abuse and neglect of a child . . . where . . . the statements are corroborated” (Matter of Sutton v Sutton, 74 AD3d 1838, 1840 [2010] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Mateo v Tuttle, 26 AD3d 731, 732 [2006]), the mother failed to offer any evidence to corroborate the child’s out-of-court statements and, therefore, the court’s preclusion of those statements was proper.

Contrary to the mother’s further contention, the court properly determined that enforcement of the 2008 custody and visitation order is in the child’s best interests (see generally Wiles v Wiles, 171 AD2d 398, 399 [1991]; Sturm v Lyding, 96 AD2d 731, 731 [1983]). Finally, the court properly dismissed the mother’s enforcement petition inasmuch as she “failed to establish that the father willfully violated a clear mandate of the prior order or that his conduct defeated, impaired, impeded, or prejudiced any right or remedy to which she was entitled” (Matter of Oravec v Oravec, 89 AD3d 1475, 1475 [2011] [internal[*1239] quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Petkovsek v Snyder [appeal No. 2], 251 AD2d 1085, 1085 [1998]). Present — Scudder, EJ., Centra, Garni, Sconiers and Martoche, JJ.