Presiding Justice Alan Scheinkman Vows to Reduce Time It Takes to Hear Custody Appeals
Whether and when the appellate court may properly consider such developments, which are perforce outside the record, is vexing where the welfare of a child is at stake.
February 15, 2018 at 03:13 PM
2 minute read
I read with interest the column by Glenn S. Koopersmith published in the Feb. 7 print edition of the New York Law Journal entitled “Consideration of Post-Trial Events on Custody Appeals.” Mr. Koopersmith eloquently discusses the dilemma faced by appellate courts generally and this Court particularly when a significant change of circumstances occurs during the pendency of an appeal. Whether and when the appellate court may properly consider such developments, which are perforce outside the record, is vexing where the welfare of a child is at stake.
In an effort to try to shorten the time between the taking of an appeal and its decision in matters involving children, this Court, under the leadership of then Presiding Justice A. Gail Prudenti, instituted a process whereby Family Court Case Managers, who are appellate court clerks, work in conjunction with counsel, litigants and appeals coordinators in the courts within the Second Department to actively-manage all appeals arising from proceedings in the Family Court, as well as all Supreme Court matters where the welfare of children are involved. The Active Case Management Office within this Court continues, with the cooperation of the Family and Supreme Courts throughout the Second Department, to make every effort to shorten the time it takes for such matters to be resolved by this Court. All such matters are expedited in this Court, and are heard on a “preferred basis.” While our Court, regrettably, has a significant backlog in civil cases generally, the priority given to child custody cases has enabled us to resolve these matters expeditiously. As part of my new responsibilities as Presiding Justice, I will be reviewing our procedures in order to reduce the time for appeals to be heard and decided.
Attorneys who have appeals pending in this Court involving the custody or welfare of children are invited to contact the Clerk, at [email protected] to assure that their appeals are being perfected and calendared as expeditiously as possible.
Alan Scheinkman is the presiding justice of the Second Department.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllRepealing Fault Grounds for Divorce Would Have Little Effect on NY Matrimonial Law
11 minute readTrending Stories
- 1The Importance of Contractual Language in Analyzing Post-Closing Earnout Disputes
- 2People in the News—Jan. 8, 2025—Stevens & Lee, Ogletree Deakins
- 3How I Made Partner: 'Avoid Getting Stuck in a Moment,' Says Federico Cuadra Del Carmen of Baker McKenzie
- 4Legal Departments Dinged for Acquiescing to Rate Hikes That 'Defy Gravity'
- 5Spalding Jurors Return $12M Verdict Against State Farm Insurance Client
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250