64 New York opinions name it 4 courts 1924–2026 12 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Bronstein-Becher v. Bechergreen2 sentences2013The medical documents presented by the father at the hearing were inadmissible (see Matter of Bronstein-Becher v Becher, 25 AD3d 796, 797 [2006]), and, in any case, were insufficient to establish that his purported medical conditions prevented him from obtaining employment that was commensurate with his education and skills (see Matter of Musumeci v Musumeci, 295 AD2d 516 [2002]). 2013The medical documents presented by the father at the hearing were inadmissible (see Matter of Bronstein-Becher v Becher, 25 AD3d 796, 797 [2006]), and, in any case, were insufficient to establish that his purported medical conditions prevented him from obtaining employment that was commensurate with his education and skills (see Matter of Musumeci v Musumeci, 295 AD2d 516 [2002]). | 3 | 3 |
Raychelle J. v. Kendell K.green2 sentences2017The father does not challenge Family Court’s finding that there was a change in circumstances warranting a review of the issues of custody and visitation to ensure the best interests of the child (see Matter of Raychelle J. v Kendell K., 121 AD3d 1206, 1207 [2014]). 2017The father does not challenge Family Court’s finding that there was a change in circumstances warranting a review of the issues of custody and visitation to ensure the best interests of the child (see Matter of Raychelle J. v Kendell K., 121 AD3d 1206, 1207 [2014]). | 2 | 3 |
MATTER OF POWERS v. Powersgreen2 sentences2015Family Court Act § 454 (3) “explicitly allows the court a choice of probation or jail” upon a finding of a willful violation of a support order (Matter of Powers v Powers, 86 NY2d 63, 71 [1995]), but it does not authorize both probation and a jail term. 2015Family Court Act § 454 (3) “explicitly allows the court a choice of probation or jail” upon a finding of a willful violation of a support order (Matter of Powers v Powers, 86 NY2d 63, 71 [1995]), but it does not authorize both probation and a jail term. | 2 | 3 |
Quilloin v. Walcottgreen2 sentences2007(Raquel Marie X., 76 NY2d at 398 , citing Quilloin v Walcott, 434 US 246, 256 [1978].) The father argues that a “natural father’s right to assert paternal rights has been held to be a fundamental right.” (Father’s motion at 5.) This is a misinterpretation of the established jurisprudence regarding an unwed father’s constitutional rights. 2007It is essential to establish the contours of his liberty interest, since it will also dictate the protection that he is entitled to under the Equal Protection Clause. ( Raquel Marie X. , 76 NY2d at 398 , citing Quilloin v Walcott , 434 US 246, 256 [1978].) The father argues that a "natural father's right to assert paternal rights has been held to be a fundamental right." (Father's motion at 5.) This is a misinterpretation of the established jurisprudence regarding an unwed father's constitutional rights. | 2 | 2 |
Kristine Z. v. Anthony C.green2 sentences2026Since the order of protection expired by its own terms on March 29, 2025, and the father does not challenge the family offense findings underlying such order, this argument is moot ( see Matter of Tina X. v Thomas Y. , 233 AD3d at 1276-1277; Matter of Kristine Z. v Anthony C. , 43 AD3d 1284, 1284-1285 [4th Dept 2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 705 [2008]). 2026Since the order of protection expired by its own terms on March 29, 2025, and the father does not challenge the family offense findings underlying such order, this argument is moot ( see Matter of Tina X. v Thomas Y. , 233 AD3d at 1276-1277; Matter of Kristine Z. v Anthony C. , 43 AD3d 1284, 1284-1285 [4th Dept 2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 705 [2008]). | 1 | 1 |
Lombardo v. Thomasgreen2 sentences2025Accordingly, so much of the order appealed from as denied the father's objections to the May 2021 order of support must be affirmed ( see Matter of Rondello v Jack , 227 AD3d 1001, 1001; Matter of Lombardo v Thomas , 53 AD3d 549, 549). 2025Accordingly, so much of the order appealed from as denied the father's objections to the May 2021 order of support must be affirmed ( see Matter of Rondello v Jack , 227 AD3d 1001, 1001; Matter of Lombardo v Thomas , 53 AD3d 549, 549). | 1 | 1 |
Matter of John M. v. Tashina N.green1 sentence2025Initially, the father does not challenge Family Court's finding that a change in circumstances existed, and, given the breakdown in communication between the parties and the father's admissions to violating multiple provisions of the order, we agree that such threshold question has been satisfied ( see Matter of Angelica CC. v Ronald DD. , 220 AD3d 1064 , 1067 [3d Dept 2023], lv denied 40 NY3d 909 [2024]; Matter of John M. v Tashina N. , 218 AD3d 935, 937 [3d Dept 2023]). | 1 | 1 |
Matter of Joseph P. (Edwin P.)green1 sentence2024Contrary to the father's contention, his refusal to participate in a virtual trial constituted a default ( see Matter of Rodney W. v Josephine F. , 126 AD3d 605 , 606 [1st Dept 2015]), and Family Court was entitled to draw the strongest negative inference against him for failing to testify ( see Matter of Joseph P. [Edwin P.] , 143 AD3d 529, 530 [1st Dept 2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 1110 [2016]). | 1 | 1 |
Matter of Felicia Malon Rogue J. (Lena J.)green1 sentence2024The father may not challenge the fact-finding determination of permanent neglect, including whether the agency expended diligent efforts to strengthen the parental relationship between him and the child, because it was entered upon his default and he has not moved for vacatur ( see CPLR 5511; Matter of Felicia Malon Rogue J. [Lena J.] , 146 AD3d 725, 726 [1st Dept 2017]). | 1 | 1 |
Matter of McKinney v. Jonesgreen1 sentence2024Contrary to the father's contentions, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the father's attorney's application for an adjournment of the fact-finding hearing ( see Matter of Demetrious L.K. [James K.] , 157 AD3d 796 , 796; Matter of Daniel K.L. [Shaquanna L.] , 138 AD3d 743, 744 ). "'A party seeking to vacate a default must establish a reasonable excuse for the default, as well as a potentially meritorious claim or defense'" ( Matter of Timothy R. v Laverne S.G. , 172 AD3d 866 , 867, quoting Matter of Lemon v Faison , 150 AD3d 1003, 1004 ; see CPLR 5015[a][1]). "'Th | 1 | 1 |
Ryan v. Cortland Carriage Goods Co.green1 sentence2022Footnote 2: We note that counsel has an obligation to avoid misrepresentations to any court, and must affirmatively inform the court of correct facts as well as legal authorities adverse to counsel's position ( see Rules of Professional Conduct [22 NYCRRR 1200.0] rule 8.4 [c]; Ryan v Cortland Carriage Goods Co. , 133 App Div 467, 470 [1909]; see also Matter of La Cucina Mary Ann, Inc. v State Liq. | 1 | 1 |
Chamberlain v. Chamberlaingreen1 sentence2021He argues that incarceration as a punishment for failing [*3]to pay child support is an abuse of discretion, since more appropriate alternatives are warranted in light of his employment and "obvious good-faith efforts to both continue paying under his current order and defray arrears, and [his] verifiable explanations for past discrepancies." Notwithstanding the father's alleged mitigating circumstances, the suspended term of incarceration imposed is well within the court's discretion upon its finding that the father willfully failed to obey a lawful support order ( see Family Ct Act § 454 [3] | 1 | 1 |
Matter of Tina X. v. John X.green1 sentence2021Footnote 6: The November 2019 temporary order is "not a final order and, as such, is not appealable as of right" ( Matter of Tina X. v John X. , 134 AD3d 1174, 1175 [2015], citing Family Ct Act § 1112 [a]). | 1 | 1 |
Hares v. Walkergreen1 sentence2021Moreover, the father does not challenge Family Court's determination that, under the circumstances, granting the mother sole custody was in the children's best interests ( see Matter of Poromon v Evans , 176 AD3d 1642 , 1643 [4th Dept 2019]; Matter of Hares v Walker , 8 AD3d 1019, 1020 [4th Dept 2004]). | 1 | 1 |
Broome County Department of Social Services v. Painegreen1 sentence2021He argues that incarceration as a punishment for failing [*3]to pay child support is an abuse of discretion, since more appropriate alternatives are warranted in light of his employment and "obvious good-faith efforts to both continue paying under his current order and defray arrears, and [his] verifiable explanations for past discrepancies." Notwithstanding the father's alleged mitigating circumstances, the suspended term of incarceration imposed is well within the court's discretion upon its finding that the father willfully failed to obey a lawful support order ( see Family Ct Act § 454 [3] | 1 | 1 |
In re Amy Lynn T.green1 sentence2020While we do not condone his behavior, we agree with the father that, under the circumstances of this case, the court erred in granting the mother custody of the subject child in the absence of adequate notice to the father of a hearing to determine the best interests of the child ( cf. Matter of Amy Lynn T. , 217 AD2d 974, 975 [4th Dept 1995]). | 1 | 1 |
| Smith v. Stewartgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Rubackin v. Rubackingreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Hooksgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Macari v. Marichalgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Amos-Richburg v. Richburggreen | 1 | 1 |
| O'CONNELL, DANIEL v. O'CONNELL, MARYgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Matter of Jacobgreen | 1 | 1 |
| LaValle v. Haydengreen | 1 | 1 |
| Pelgrim v. Pelgrimgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Matter of Noah v. Feldgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Emanuel S. v. Joseph E.green | 1 | 1 |
| Hayward v. Thurmondgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Chifrine v. Bekkergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Graham v. Morrowgreen | 1 | 1 |
| In re Rayshawn F.green | 1 | 1 |
| Matter of Schmitz v. Schmitzgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Ryan v. Lewisgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Matter of Matthew K. v. Beth K.green | 1 | 1 |
| DeVries v. DeVriesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Taylor v. Frygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Beard v. Bailorgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Burrell v. Burrellgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People ex rel. Scott v. Grahamgreen | 1 | 1 |
| In re Kathleen OO.green | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In re Telsa Z.
green
2 sentences2014The father does not challenge the order of protection or Family Court’s determination that a sufficient change in circumstances warranting modification of the prior order had been established and, thus, any arguments he may have had with respect to those claims are deemed abandoned (see Matter of Telsa Z. [Rickey Z.—Denise Z. ], 71 AD3d 1246 , 1249 n 3 [2010]). . 2014The father does not challenge the order of protection or Family Court’s determination that a sufficient change in circumstances warranting modification of the prior order had been established and, thus, any arguments he may have had with respect to those claims are deemed abandoned (see Matter of Telsa Z. [Rickey Z.—Denise Z. ], 71 AD3d 1246 , 1249 n 3 [2010]). . | 5 | 2013–2014 |
Matter of Daija K P. (Danielle P.)
green
2 sentences2024Although the order dated July 14, 2022, was entered upon the father's default, the father may challenge the denial of his attorney's application for an adjournment of the fact-finding hearing since it was the subject of contest below ( see Matter of Neferteir A.R. [Jessie R.R.] , 221 [*2]AD3d 605, 605; Matter of Daija K.P. [Danielle P.] , 129 AD3d 1087, 1087 ). 2023Although the order of fact-finding and disposition was entered upon the father's default, the father may challenge the denial of his attorney's applications for adjournments since they were the subject of contest below ( see Matter of Daija K.P. [Danielle P.] , 129 AD3d 1087 ; Matter of Xiao-Lan Ma v Washington , 127 AD3d 982 ; Matter of Ca'leb R.D. [Mary D.S.] , 121 AD3d 890 ). | 2 | 2023–2024 |
Musumeci v. Musumeci
green
2 sentences2013The medical documents presented by the father at the hearing were inadmissible (see Matter of Bronstein-Becher v Becher, 25 AD3d 796, 797 [2006]), and, in any case, were insufficient to establish that his purported medical conditions prevented him from obtaining employment that was commensurate with his education and skills (see Matter of Musumeci v Musumeci, 295 AD2d 516 [2002]). 2013The medical documents presented by the father at the hearing were inadmissible (see Matter of Bronstein-Becher v Becher, 25 AD3d 796, 797 [2006]), and, in any case, were insufficient to establish that his purported medical conditions prevented him from obtaining employment that was commensurate with his education and skills (see Matter of Musumeci v Musumeci, 295 AD2d 516 [2002]). | 2 | 2013–2013 |
Moore v. Shapiro
green
2 sentences2011The father contends for the first time on appeal that the court should have dismissed both his own petition and that of the mother based on their failure to mediate and thus that contention is not preserved for our review (see generally Matter of Moore v Shapiro, 30 AD3d 1054 [2006]). 2011The father contends for the first time on appeal that the court should have dismissed both his own petition and that of the mother based on their failure to mediate and thus that contention is not preserved for our review (see generally Matter of Moore v Shapiro, 30 AD3d 1054 ). | 2 | 2011–2011 |
In re Raquel Marie X.
green
2 sentences2007(Raquel Marie X., 76 NY2d at 398 , citing Quilloin v Walcott, 434 US 246, 256 [1978].) The father argues that a “natural father’s right to assert paternal rights has been held to be a fundamental right.” (Father’s motion at 5.) This is a misinterpretation of the established jurisprudence regarding an unwed father’s constitutional rights. 2007It is essential to establish the contours of his liberty interest, since it will also dictate the protection that he is entitled to under the Equal Protection Clause. ( Raquel Marie X. , 76 NY2d at 398 , citing Quilloin v Walcott , 434 US 246, 256 [1978].) The father argues that a "natural father's right to assert paternal rights has been held to be a fundamental right." (Father's motion at 5.) This is a misinterpretation of the established jurisprudence regarding an unwed father's constitutional rights. | 2 | 2007–2007 |
Nehra v. Uhlar
green
2 sentences1994Moreover, the court ignored other factors cited by the courts that are particularly pertinent to this case, i.e., the child’s original placement and each parent’s ability to provide for the child’s emotional and intellectual needs (see, Eschbach v Eschbach, supra, at 171; Matter of Nehra v Uhlar, 43 NY2d 242, 251 ; Matter of Lobo, 196 AD2d 585 ; Klat v Klat, supra, at 922-923 ). 1978The custody herein by the father was not in violation of a court order (see Matter of Nehra v Uhlar, 43 NY2d 242 , affg sub nom. | 2 | 1978–1994 |
Matter of Shimunov v. Davydov
green
1 sentence2025The issue of whether the intent or subsequent effect of the statement constituted a violation of the custody order should have been resolved at a hearing ( see Matter of Pedicini v Hull , 223 AD3d 672 , 674; Matter of Shimunov v Davydov , 179 AD3d 812, 813 ). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Matter of Brian W. v. Mary X.
green
1 sentence2025Footnote 2: The August 2022 order was superseded by the amended order entered in September 2022; as such, the father's appeal from the August 2022 order must be dismissed ( see Matter of Brian W. v Mary X. , 200 AD3d 1439 , 1441 n 1 [3d Dept 2021]). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Matter of Daniel K. L. (Shaquanna L.)
green
1 sentence2024Contrary to the father's contentions, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the father's attorney's application for an adjournment of the fact-finding hearing ( see Matter of Demetrious L.K. [James K.] , 157 AD3d 796 , 796; Matter of Daniel K.L. [Shaquanna L.] , 138 AD3d 743, 744 ). "'A party seeking to vacate a default must establish a reasonable excuse for the default, as well as a potentially meritorious claim or defense'" ( Matter of Timothy R. v Laverne S.G. , 172 AD3d 866 , 867, quoting Matter of Lemon v Faison , 150 AD3d 1003, 1004 ; see CPLR 5015[a][1]). "'Th | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Golub v. Golub
neutral
1 sentence2024Contrary to the father's contention, his refusal to participate in a virtual trial constituted a default ( see Matter of Rodney W. v Josephine F. , 126 AD3d 605 , 606 [1st Dept 2015]), and Family Court was entitled to draw the strongest negative inference against him for failing to testify ( see Matter of Joseph P. [Edwin P.] , 143 AD3d 529, 530 [1st Dept 2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 1110 [2016]). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Matter of Lemon v. Faison
green
1 sentence2024Contrary to the father's contentions, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the father's attorney's application for an adjournment of the fact-finding hearing ( see Matter of Demetrious L.K. [James K.] , 157 AD3d 796 , 796; Matter of Daniel K.L. [Shaquanna L.] , 138 AD3d 743, 744 ). "'A party seeking to vacate a default must establish a reasonable excuse for the default, as well as a potentially meritorious claim or defense'" ( Matter of Timothy R. v Laverne S.G. , 172 AD3d 866 , 867, quoting Matter of Lemon v Faison , 150 AD3d 1003, 1004 ; see CPLR 5015[a][1]). "'Th | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Matter of Rodney W. v. Josephine F.
green
1 sentence2024Contrary to the father's contention, his refusal to participate in a virtual trial constituted a default ( see Matter of Rodney W. v Josephine F. , 126 AD3d 605 , 606 [1st Dept 2015]), and Family Court was entitled to draw the strongest negative inference against him for failing to testify ( see Matter of Joseph P. [Edwin P.] , 143 AD3d 529, 530 [1st Dept 2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 1110 [2016]). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Matter of Ca'leb R. D. (Mary D. S.)
green
1 sentence2023Although the order of fact-finding and disposition was entered upon the father's default, the father may challenge the denial of his attorney's applications for adjournments since they were the subject of contest below ( see Matter of Daija K.P. [Danielle P.] , 129 AD3d 1087 ; Matter of Xiao-Lan Ma v Washington , 127 AD3d 982 ; Matter of Ca'leb R.D. [Mary D.S.] , 121 AD3d 890 ). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Matter of Xiao-Lan Ma v. Washington
green
1 sentence2023Although the order of fact-finding and disposition was entered upon the father's default, the father may challenge the denial of his attorney's applications for adjournments since they were the subject of contest below ( see Matter of Daija K.P. [Danielle P.] , 129 AD3d 1087 ; Matter of Xiao-Lan Ma v Washington , 127 AD3d 982 ; Matter of Ca'leb R.D. [Mary D.S.] , 121 AD3d 890 ). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| People v. Medler green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Lapham v. Osik neutral | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Dillon v. Dillon green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Christopher B. v. Patricia B. green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Gracie C. v. Nelson C. green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Thompson v. Thompson green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Horike v. Freedman green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Conlon v. Kortz green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| HARDER, DANIEL B. v. PHETTEPLACE, NICOLE B. green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Kessler v. Liberty Mutual Insurance neutral | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Ciesinski v. Town of Aurora green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Colucci v. Colucci green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| Sorrentino v. Pearlstein green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| Nunn v. Bagley green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| Lovitch v. Lovitch green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| Wegman v. Dairylea Cooperative, Inc. green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| Gipp v. Gipp neutral | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| Herzfeld v. Herzfeld green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.