Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997

Jones v. Scaldini

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided April 14, 1997

238 A.D.2d 422; 656 N.Y.S.2d 370; 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3866

Cases that cite this one

6 later published cases cite this decision.

Matter of R.B. v. I.S. (Richmond Family Court 2024)
Matter of R.B. v. I.S. (Richmond Family Court 2024)
Odeh v. Assad (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
Tolbert v. Scott (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
Martin R.G. v. Ofelia G.O. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
Granados-Corrigan v. Corrigan (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals, by permission, from an order of the Family Court, *423Kings County (Schechter, J.), dated December 16, 1996, which granted the mother’s application for an award of temporary custody of the parties’ son.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the mother’s application for an award of temporary custody is denied.

The father has had sole custody of the parties’ son since 1989. Based on the son’s expressed desire to live with her, the mother commenced this proceeding to change custody. The Family Court granted the mother temporary custody without holding a hearing or stating its reasons for changing custody. This Court granted a stay pending the hearing and determination of the appeal.

The Family Court improvidently exercised its discretion in temporarily changing custody to the mother without conducting a hearing (see, Senior v Senior, 152 AD2d 784; Savas v Savas, 127 AD2d 578; Bellinger v Bellinger, 109 AD2d 1104; Richman v Richman, 104 AD2d 934). Concededly, the father is a fit parent and the son has a good relationship with both parents. The record reveals no apparent need or reason to change custody without conducting an inquiry as to whether such a change is in the son’s best interests. Altman, J. P., Friedmann, Goldstein and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.