Nalty v. Kong, 59 A.D.3d 723 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009). · Go Syfert
Search
Nalty v. Kong, 59 A.D.3d 723 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 6× by 6 distinct cases · …generally, the determination of a custody issue can only be resolved after a full and comprehensive hearing, and a careful analysis of the applicable factors to be considered in determining what custody arrangement will further the child's best interests at p. 724 ✓
24 citation events (24 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Matter of Massay v. Manoyrine (nyappdiv, 2017-04-19)
Treatment trajectory · 2010 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2010 2018 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 14 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Massay v. Manoyrine
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
Accordingly, we remit the matter to the Family Court, Kings County, for a new hearing and determination of the mother’s petition for sole custody of the children, to be held with all convenient speed (see Matter of Sims v Boykin, 130 AD3d 835, 837 [2015]; Matter of Nalty v Kong, 59 AD3d 723, 724 [2009]; Matter of Roldan v Nieves, 51 AD3d 803, 806 [2008]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Sims v. Boykin
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
This authority, however, in no way diminishes the court’s primary responsibil *836 ity to ensure that an award of custody is predicated on the child’s best interests, upon consideration of the totality of the circumstances (see Matter of Roldan v Nieves, 51 AD3d 803, 805 [2008]), after a full and comprehensive hearing and a careful analysis of all relevant factors (see Matter of Nalty v Kong, 59 AD3d 723, 724 [2009]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Varner v. Glass
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
The record evidence here was patently insufficient to permit such an analysis; instead, it fully illustrates why it is generally held to be error as a matter of law to render a custody award in a controverted proceeding without the benefit of a full hearing (see Matter of Nalty v Kong, 59 AD3d 723, 724 [2009]; Matter of Williams v Williams, 35 AD3d 1098, 1099-1100 [2006]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Law v. Gray
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
An award of custody must be based upon the best interests of the child, and neither parent has a prima facie right to custody of the child (see Domestic Relations Law § 70 [a]; Matter of Peek v Peek, 79 AD3d 753, 753-754 [2010]). “ ‘Generally, the determination of a custody issue can only be resolved after a full and comprehensive hearing, and a careful analysis of the applicable factors to be considered in determining what custody arrangement will further the child’s best interests’ ” (Matter of Zaratzian v Abadir, 105 AD3d 1054 , 1054 [2013], quoting Matter of Nalty v Kong, 59 AD3…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Law v. Gray
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
An award of custody must be based upon the best interests of the child, and neither parent has a prima facie right to custody of the child (see Domestic Relations Law § 70 [a]; Matter of Peek v Peek, 79 AD3d 753, 753-754 [2010]). “ ‘Generally, the determination of a custody issue can only be resolved after a full and comprehensive hearing, and a careful analysis of the applicable factors to be considered in determining what custody arrangement will further the child’s best interests’ ” (Matter of Zaratzian v Abadir, 105 AD3d 1054 , 1054 [2013], quoting Matter of Nalty v Kong, 59 AD3…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Stramezzi v. Scozzari
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
“Generally, the determination of a custody issue can only be resolved after a full and comprehensive hearing, and a careful analysis of the applicable factors to be considered in determining what custody arrangement will further the child’s best interests” (Matter of Nalty v Kong, 59 AD3d 723, 724 [2009]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Stramezzi v. Scozzari
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
“Generally, the determination of a custody issue can only be resolved after a full and comprehensive hearing, and a careful analysis of the applicable factors to be considered in determining what custody arrangement will further the child’s best interests” (Matter of Nalty v Kong, 59 AD3d 723, 724 [2009]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Zaratzian v. Abadir
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
“Generally, the determination of a custody issue can only be resolved after a full and comprehensive hearing, and a careful analysis of the applicable factors to be considered in determining what custody arrangement will further the child’s best interests” (Matter of Nalty v Kong, 59 AD3d 723, 724 [2009]; see Obey v Degling, 37 NY2d 768, 769-770 [1975]; Matter of Peek v Peek, 79 AD3d at 753-754 ; Audubon v Audubon, 138 AD2d 658, 658-659 [1988]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Zaratzian v. Abadir
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
“Generally, the determination of a custody issue can only be resolved after a full and comprehensive hearing, and a careful analysis of the applicable factors to be considered in determining what custody arrangement will further the child’s best interests” (Matter of Nalty v Kong, 59 AD3d 723, 724 [2009]; see Obey v Degling, 37 NY2d 768, 769-770 [1975]; Matter of Peek v Peek, 79 AD3d at 753-754 ; Audubon v Audubon, 138 AD2d 658, 658-659 [1988]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Savoca v. Bellofatto
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
“Generally, the determination of a custody issue can only be resolved after a full and comprehensive hearing, and a careful analysis of the applicable factors to be considered in determining what custody arrangement will further the child’s best interests” (Matter of Nalty v Kong, 59 AD3d 723, 724 [2009]; see Obey v Degling, 37 NY2d 768, 769-770 [1975]; Matter of Peek v Peek, 79 AD3d at 753-754 ; Audubon v Audubon, 138 AD2d 658, 658-659 [1988]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Savoca v. Bellofatto
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
“Generally, the determination of a custody issue can only be resolved after a full and comprehensive hearing, and a careful analysis of the applicable factors to be considered in determining what custody arrangement will further the child’s best interests” (Matter of Nalty v Kong, 59 AD3d 723, 724 [2009]; see Obey v Degling, 37 NY2d 768, 769-770 [1975]; Matter of Peek v Peek, 79 AD3d at 753-754 ; Audubon v Audubon, 138 AD2d 658, 658-659 [1988]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Kreischer v. Perry
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
Furthermore, the Family Court was not required to sua sponte order a forensic evaluation of the mother, as there was no discernable legitimate purpose for a court-ordered forensic evaluation in this case, and the Family Court possessed sufficient information to render an informed decision regarding custody consistent with the subject child’s best interests (see Family Ct Act § 251; Matter of Pappas v Kells, 77 AD3d at 954; Matter of Rhodie v Nathan, 67 AD3d 687 [2009]; cf. Matter of Nalty v Kong, 59 AD3d 723, 724 [2009]).
discussed Cited "see" Thomson v. Battle
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · signal: see · confidence high
“To modify an existing custody arrangement, there must be a showing of a change in circumstances subsequent to the initial determination that requires modification to protect the best interests of the children” (Matter of Dana H. v James Y., 89 AD3d 844, 845 [2011]; see Matter of Anwar v Sani, 78 AD3d 827, 827 [2010]; Matter of Gurewich v Gurewich, 58 AD3d 628, 629 [2009]; Matter of Fallarino v Ayala, 41 AD3d 714, 714 [2007]). “ Tn a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act article 6 seeking modification of a prior custody order, a full and comprehensive hearing is required’ ” (Matter of…
discussed Cited "see" Thomson v. Battle
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · signal: see · confidence high
“To modify an existing custody arrangement, there must be a showing of a change in circumstances subsequent to the initial determination that requires modification to protect the best interests of the children” (Matter of Dana H. v James Y., 89 AD3d 844, 845 [2011]; see Matter of Anwar v Sani, 78 AD3d 827, 827 [2010]; Matter of Gurewich v Gurewich, 58 AD3d 628, 629 [2009]; Matter of Fallarino v Ayala, 41 AD3d 714, 714 [2007]). “ Tn a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act article 6 seeking modification of a prior custody order, a full and comprehensive hearing is required’ ” (Matter of…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Camellia M. Nalty
v.
Clifton A. Kong, (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Clifton A. Kong v. Camellia M. Nalty, (Proceeding No. 2.)
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Feb 24, 2009.
59 A.D.3d 723
Cited by 18 opinions  |  Published

In related custody proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, in which the parties respectively sought custody of the subject child, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Nassau[*724] County (Philips, Ct. Atty. Ref.), dated March 26, 2008, which, after a hearing, awarded the parties joint custody of the child.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Nassau County, for a new hearing before a different Court Attorney Referee, to be held with all convenient speed, and a new determination thereafter; and it is further,

Ordered that pending the final custody determination, the mother shall have temporary custody of the child, with visitation to the father each week from Tuesday at 3:00 p.m. until Wednesday at 9:00 p.m., and on alternate weekends from Friday at 12:00 noon until Sunday at 6:00 p.m.

An award of custody must be based on the child’s best interests (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 171 [1982]). Generally, the determination of a custody issue can only be resolved after a full and comprehensive hearing, and a careful analysis of the applicable factors to be considered in determining what custody arrangement will further the child’s best interests (see Obey v Degling, 37 NY2d 768, 769-770 [1975]; State ex rel. Hathaway v Baker, 103 AD2d 762, 762-763 [1984]). Hence, as a general rule, it is error, as a matter of law, to make an order respecting custody based upon controverted allegations without the benefit of a full hearing (see Matter of Roldan v Nieves, 51 AD3d 803, 805 [2008]; Matter of Ling Da Chen v Yue Hua Zhou, 39 AD3d 753 [2007]; Matter of Khan v Dolly, 6 AD3d 437, 439 [2004]; Matter of Hudgins v Goodley, 301 AD2d 524 [2003]; Matter of Benedict v Zimmer, 296 AD2d 459 [2002]; Matter of Klang v Klang, 235 AD2d 476, 477 [1997]). Indeed, a custody determination must have a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Roldan v Nieves, 51 AD3d at 805).

In deciding the parties’ petitions for sole custody of the child, the Family Court, faced with controverted allegations, made a custody determination after an abbreviated hearing at which the evidence was insufficient to make an informed “best interests” determination. Under these circumstances, the Family Court’s custody determination lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record, and cannot be upheld (see Matter of Roldan v Nieves, 51 AD3d at 805; Matter of Machado v Del Villar, 299 AD2d 361 [2002]; State ex rel. Hathaway v Baker, 103 AD2d at 763). Accordingly, we reverse the order appealed from, and remit the matter to the Family Court, Nassau County, for a de novo hearing before a different Court Attorney Referee, to be held with all convenient speed, and a new custody determination thereafter.

The contentions of the father and the attorney for the child[*725] concerning the appealability of the order under review, as well as the reviewability of the mother’s arguments, are without merit. Prudenti, EJ., Dillon, Covello and Leventhal, JJ., concur.