Court of Appeals Holds Where Party Represented by Counsel Family Court Objections Must Be Served Upon Him.

    In Matter of Odunbaku v Odunbaku, 2016 NY Slip Op 07705 (2016) the Court of Appeals held that if a party is represented by counsel, the time requirements set out in Family Court Act § 439 (e) for objections to a support magistrate's final order, when the order is served by mail, do not begin to run until the order is mailed to counsel.

    The mother retained Staten Island Legal Services to represent her in her efforts to obtain child support from respondent father, with whom she had a son. Through counsel, who represented her throughout the proceedings she obtained a support order. Subsequently a different support magistrate granted the father's petition for downward modification and reduced the father's child support obligation. The order and findings, dated July 24, 2013, was mailed by the Clerk of Family Court directly to the father and to the mother, but not to the father's lawyer or the mother's lawyer. On September 3, 2013, 41 days after the orders were mailed, the mother, through counsel, filed objections. Family Court denied the bjections as untimely, relying on Family Court Act § 439 (e), which provides that "[s]pecific written objections to a final order of a support magistrate may be filed by either party with the court within thirty days after receipt of the order in court or by personal service, or, if the objecting party or parties did not receive the order in court or by personal service, thirty-five days after mailing of the order to such party or parties" (emphasis added). The Court ruled that "the mailing of a copy of the order and findings of fact to a party of the proceedings satisfied the requirements of § 439 (e) and [22 NYCRR] 205.36 (b)" and that "neither the Family Court Act nor [22 NYCRR 205.36 (b)] specifically requires that the Clerk of Court shall mail a copy of the Support Magistrate's order and decision to a party's attorney."

    The mother appealed relying on Matter of Bianca v Frank (43 NY2d 168 [1977]). The Appellate Division affirmed relying on 22 NYCRR 205.36  (b) which  provides that "[a]t the time of the entry of the order of support, the clerk of [Family Court] shall cause a copy of the findings of fact and order of support to be served either in person or by mail upon the parties to the proceeding or their attorneys."

     The Court of Appeals reversed holding that Matter of Bianca v Frank was dispositive. There, it held that once counsel has appeared in a matter a Statute of Limitations or time requirement cannot begin to run unless that counsel is served with the determination or the order or judgment sought to be reviewed". The Bianca Court recognized that this principle would not apply if a legislative enactment specifically excluded the necessity of serving counsel by stating the legislative "intention to depart from the standard practice . . . in unmistakable terms" . The Court noted that the  rationale of Bianca is straightforward. "[O]nce a party chooses to be represented by counsel in an action or proceeding, whether administrative or judicial, the attorney is deemed to act as his agent in all respects relevant to the proceeding. Thus any documents, particularly those purporting to have legal effect on the proceeding, should be served on the attorney the party has chosen to handle the matter on his behalf”

    The Court held that Bianca governed and the reference to the mailing of the order to a "party or parties" in Family Court Act § 439 (e) must be read to require that the order be mailed to the party's counsel, in order for the statutory time requirement to commence. While section 439 (e) uses the term "party," the statute does not convey in language that could not be mistaken that mailing to a represented party is dispositive for time requirement purposes and mailing to counsel is unnecessary, notwithstanding Bianca.

Court of Appeals Overrules Matter of Alison D. and re-defines meaning of "parent" for custody and visitation purposes

           In Matter of Brooke S.B., v Elizabeth A. C.C., two related cases, the Court of Appeals revisited  Matter of Alison D. v Virginia M. (77 NY2d 651 [1991]) which held that in an unmarried couple, a partner without a biological or adoptive relation to a child is not that child's "parent" for purposes of standing to seek custody or visitation under Domestic Relations Law § 70 (a), notwithstanding their "established relationship with the child".  The Court of Appeals agreed that the Petitioners in these cases, who similarly lacked any biological or adoptive connection to the children, should have standing to seek custody and visitation pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 70 (a) in light of more recently delineated legal principles, which required it to conclude that that definition of "parent" established by it in Alison D. has become unworkable when applied to increasingly varied familial relationships. The Court, in an opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam overruled Alison D. and held that where a partner shows by clear and convincing evidence that the parties agreed to conceive a child and to raise the child together, the non-biological, non-adoptive partner has standing to seek visitation and custody under Domestic Relations Law § 70.  

          The Court of Appeals pointed out that the petitioners had argued that its holding that Domestic Relations Law § 70 permits a non-biological, non-adoptive parent to achieve standing to petition for custody and visitation requires it to specify the limited circumstances in which such a person has standing as a "parent" under Domestic Relations Law § 70.  It observed that because of the fundamental rights to which biological and adoptive parents are entitled, any encroachment on the rights of such parents and, especially, any test to expand who is a parent, must be appropriately narrow.  It rejected the premise that it must now declare that one test would be appropriate for all situations, or that the competing tests proffered by Petitioners and amici were the only options that should be considered.  It noted that the Petitioners had alleged in both cases before it that the parties entered into a pre-conception agreement to conceive and raise a child as co-parents.  It held that these allegations, if proven by clear and convincing evidence, were sufficient to establish standing.  Because it decided these cases based on the facts presented to it, it was premature for the Court to consider adopting a test for situations in which a couple did not enter into a pre-conception agreement. The Court specified that it did not decide whether, in a case where a biological or adoptive parent consented to the creation of a parent-like relationship between his or her partner and child after conception, the partner can establish standing to seek visitation and custody. Inasmuch as the conception test applied here, it did not opine on the proper test, if any, to be applied in situations in which a couple has not entered into a pre-conception agreement.  It merely concluded that, where a petitioner proves by clear and convincing evidence that he or she has agreed with the biological parent of the child to conceive and raise the child as co-parents, the petitioner has presented sufficient evidence to achieve standing to seek custody and visitation of the child.  Whether a partner without such an agreement can establish standing and if so, what factors a petitioner must establish to achieve standing based on equitable estoppel was a matter left for another day, upon a different record. The Court stressed that its decision addressed only the ability of a person to establish standing as a parent to petition for custody or visitation; the ultimate determination of whether those rights shall be granted rests in the sound discretion of the court, which will determine the best interests of the child.   The Court of Appeals agreed that the Petitioners in these cases, who similarly lacked any biological or adoptive connection to the children, should have standing to seek custody and visitation pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 70 (a) in light of more recently delineated legal principles, which required it to conclude that that definition of "parent" established by it in Alison D. has become unworkable when applied to increasingly varied familial relationships. The Court, in an opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam overruled Alison D. and held that where a partner shows by clear and convincing evidence that the parties agreed to conceive a child and to raise the child together, the non-biological, non-adoptive partner has standing to seek visitation and custody under Domestic Relations Law § 70.  

          The Court of Appeals pointed out that the petitioners had argued that its holding that Domestic Relations Law § 70 permits a non-biological, non-adoptive parent to achieve standing to petition for custody and visitation requires it to specify the limited circumstances in which such a person has standing as a "parent" under Domestic Relations Law § 70.  It observed that because of the fundamental rights to which biological and adoptive parents are entitled, any encroachment on the rights of such parents and, especially, any test to expand who is a parent, must be appropriately narrow.  It rejected the premise that it must now declare that one test would be appropriate for all situations, or that the competing tests proffered by Petitioners and amici were the only options that should be considered.  It noted that the Petitioners had alleged in both cases before it that the parties entered into a pre-conception agreement to conceive and raise a child as co-parents.  It held that these allegations, if proven by clear and convincing evidence, were sufficient to establish standing.  Because it decided these cases based on the facts presented to it, it was premature for the Court to consider adopting a test for situations in which a couple did not enter into a pre-conception agreement. The Court specified that it did not decide whether, in a case where a biological or adoptive parent consented to the creation of a parent-like relationship between his or her partner and child after conception, the partner can establish standing to seek visitation and custody. Inasmuch as the conception test applied here, it did not opine on the proper test, if any, to be applied in situations in which a couple has not entered into a pre-conception agreement.  It merely concluded that, where a petitioner proves by clear and convincing evidence that he or she has agreed with the biological parent of the child to conceive and raise the child as co-parents, the petitioner has presented sufficient evidence to achieve standing to seek custody and visitation of the child.  Whether a partner without such an agreement can establish standing and if so, what factors a petitioner must establish to achieve standing based on equitable estoppel was a matter left for another day, upon a different record. The Court stressed that its decision addressed only the ability of a person to establish standing as a parent to petition for custody or visitation; the ultimate determination of whether those rights shall be granted rests in the sound discretion of the court, which will determine the best interests of the child.  

The Court of Appeals has amended its Rules of Practice, effective June 22, 2016.

Principal briefs filed on normal course appeals, certified questions and review of the determinations of the State Commission on Judicial Conduct are subject to a 14,000 word limit. Requests to exceed the limit may be made by letter. Rule 500.1 1 submissions (the Alternative Procedure for Selected Appeals), reply briefs, amicus curiae briefs and briefs in response to amicus curiae briefs are subject to a 7,000 word limit. The amended Rules provide corresponding page limits for briefs that are handwritten or prepared on a typewriter. The new word and page limits apply to all appeals for which the preliminary appeal statement is filed on or after the June 22 effective date.

Court of Appeals Holds Consecutive Commitments are Authorized by Family Court Act § 454(3)

In Matter of Columbia County Support Collection Unit, v. Risley, 2016 WL 3147588 (2016) the Court of Appeals held that Family Court, in revoking two prior suspended orders of commitment, was authorized to order consecutive six-month sentences for each to run consecutively with a third six-month sentence imposed for a current violation. The Court, in an opinion by Judge Garcia, observed that Family Court is empowered “to use any or all enforcement powers in every proceeding brought for violation of a court order” of support (Family Ct Act § 454[1] ). Such powers include the authority to sentence willfully non-compliant parents to jail “for a term not to exceed six months [,]” but also to suspend such orders of commitment when appropriate (see Family Ct Act §§ 454[3][a], 455[1] ). The Appellate Division rejected the contention that consecutive commitments were not authorized by Family Court Act § 454(3) and concluded that “[g]iven the father’s failure to contest the amounts due and his willful refusal to voluntarily pay them despite repeated opportunities afforded to him over more than three years, we find no abuse of discretion in the determination to run the sentences consecutively” (122 AD3d 1097, 1098 [3d Dept 2014] ). The Court of Appeals agreed with the Appellate Division and affirmed its order.