A New York court recently ruled in a custody dispute between Kiranjit K. Multani and Varinder Singh, affecting their child. The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York decided the case on October 14, 2026. The ruling is significant as it upholds the mother's sole custody rights after the father failed to appear at a critical hearing.
The case, officially titled Matter of Multani v. Singh (Docket No. 2025-14175), began when both parents petitioned for sole legal and residential custody of their child. The dispute escalated to the Family Court in Queens County, where the father’s absence at a hearing ultimately influenced the court's decision.
The court proceedings revealed that on July 9, 2025, the father did not attend a hearing regarding custody arrangements. His attorney requested an adjournment, but the Family Court denied this request and proceeded to hear the mother’s petition. As a result, the court granted the mother sole legal and residential custody of their child and dismissed the father's petition for custody.
Following these decisions, the father sought to vacate the court's orders, arguing that his absence was due to hospitalization shortly before the hearing. However, the Family Court found that he did not provide a sufficient explanation for failing to inform the court or his attorney about his situation.
The Appellate Division's ruling affirmed the Family Court's decisions. The court stated, "Although this Court has adopted a liberal policy with respect to vacating defaults in custody proceedings, it remains incumbent upon a movant to make the requisite showing." This indicates that while courts may be lenient in certain circumstances, parties must still demonstrate valid reasons for their actions.
In its decision, the Appellate Division dismissed the father's appeal regarding the first order dated July 9, 2025, which granted the mother custody, and also dismissed the appeal of the second order that denied his petition. The court upheld the Family Court's discretion in denying the father's request to vacate the orders, emphasizing that he did not provide a reasonable excuse for his absence.
The ruling has implications for future custody cases, particularly regarding how courts handle situations where a parent fails to appear at a hearing. It reinforces the importance of being present during custody proceedings and the necessity of providing credible explanations for any absence.
This decision may set a precedent for similar cases in the future, as it highlights the court's expectation for parents to actively participate in custody hearings. It also serves as a reminder that failure to appear can have serious consequences in custody disputes.
Looking ahead, the father may have the option to appeal further, but the court's ruling is currently final unless new evidence or circumstances arise. There are no indications of related cases pending at this time.