Appellate Court Sends Custody Dispute Back for a Hearing

A custody dispute can change a family’s schedule overnight. When a court acts before all the evidence is presented, the process can feel abrupt. On June 18, 2025, the New York Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed a lower court order in a contested custody and relocation matter, finding that the lower court denied a request for a custody modification and relocation without an evidentiary hearing. Barrows Levy PLLC, a Garden City law firm with offices in the area and New York City, represented the appellant. The decision demonstrates how procedure determines custody outcomes when facts remain disputed.

A Reversal Focused on Process

The appeal arose after the trial court denied the parents’ joint application to modify custody and relocate without holding an evidentiary hearing. This meant the parents were unable to present full factual arguments at the trial level before the decision was made. 

On review, the Appellate Division held that the approach was an error while disputed facts were present. The panel emphasized that when disagreements affect children’s best interests, a hearing should occur before the court denies the requested relief.

Why Hearings Change the Dynamic

Custody fights often revolve around routines that look simple until they’re disputed. School mornings, travel plans, living setups, and who actually handles what during the week can sound straightforward in writing, but fall apart when someone has to talk them through out loud. A hearing forces those details into the open. People answer questions in real time, clarify gaps, and react to each other’s versions of events. That can shift how the situation is understood.

Due Process, Without the Snooze

The ruling spotlights a due-process issue that arises in family litigation more often than people think. Summary denial can move a crowded calendar along, yet speed has limits when the stakes involve where a child lives and how parenting time is set. 

Barrows Levy PLLC argued that denying the application without a hearing deprived the moving party of due process and blocked meaningful consideration of the children’s best interests. The appellate panel agreed, reversed the order, and remitted the matter to the Supreme Court for further proceedings, including an evidentiary hearing on the parents’ application.

Independent Representation for Children

The Appellate Division also said an attorney should be appointed to represent the children. That person steps into the case with a narrow job: to keep track of what’s happening from the children’s perspective, separate from either parent’s strategy. 

In disputes where adults spend months arguing over schedules and logistics, that extra voice can shift the case’s tone in small but noticeable ways. Judges end up hearing less about abstract positions and more about how a proposed change might actually land for the kids involved.

What Happens Next

The ruling doesn’t resolve where anyone lives or who has custody. It sends the case back to the trial court so a hearing can actually happen and both sides can present their evidence. From there, the next decision will come out of that record, not from a summary dismissal.

Barrows Levy PLLC represented the appellant in the case and argued that denying the application without a hearing raised due process concerns. The firm focuses on family matrimonial law and reports an active appellate practice across New York courts. With the matter now returning to the trial level, the case moves into its next phase under the framework set by the appellate ruling.