The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York recently ruled in the case of Figaro v. White, reversing a previous custody order that had granted sole custody of a child to the mother. This decision, made on June 17, 2026, allows the father to contest earlier rulings regarding custody and a protective order, significantly impacting the family's future.
The case centers around Salome Alexis Figaro and Malik Isaiah White, who are married but live separately. They are the parents of a child born in 2013. The dispute began when the mother initiated legal proceedings against the father in January 2021, seeking sole legal and physical custody of their child, along with a family offense proceeding. The situation escalated, leading to a court decision in March 2022 that favored the mother.
On March 23, 2022, the Supreme Court ruled that the father had defaulted by leaving the courtroom and subsequently granted the mother sole custody while suspending all parenting time for the father. The court also issued an order of protection against the father, requiring him to stay away from both the mother and child until March 22, 2024. Following this, the father attempted to vacate the custody order and the order of protection, claiming he had a reasonable excuse for his departure from the courtroom.
In a temporary order in August 2022, the court denied the father's motion to vacate. However, a subsequent order on December 10, 2024, corrected a ministerial error in the previous temporary order, but still denied the father's motion to vacate the custody order and the protective order. The father appealed this decision, leading to the recent ruling.
The Appellate Division, consisting of Justices Francesca E. Connolly, Paul Wooten, Lourdes M. Ventura, and Lisa S. Ottley, addressed the father's appeal. The court ruled that the father was not aggrieved by the initial December 10, 2024 order because it granted him the relief he sought regarding the ministerial error. However, the court reversed the corrected order that denied his motion to vacate the custody order and the protective order.
The court stated, "the Supreme Court should not have issued the custody order or the order of protection upon the father's default...the father demonstrated a reasonable excuse for his default."
The ruling emphasized the importance of a full hearing in custody cases, noting that the initial determination lacked specific findings regarding the child's best interests. The court pointed out that the father had a potentially meritorious defense to the mother's custody petition and family offense petition, warranting a new hearing.
This decision has significant implications for the father, who now has the opportunity to contest the custody arrangement and the protective order. The court's ruling underscores the principle that custody decisions must be made based on the best interests of the child and that parties should have the chance to present their cases fully.
Going forward, the case will be remitted to the Supreme Court in Kings County for a new hearing and determination of the mother's custody and family offense petitions. This new hearing will allow for a comprehensive examination of the facts and circumstances surrounding the custody dispute.
The ruling may also set a precedent for similar cases, reinforcing the necessity for courts to conduct thorough hearings in custody matters, particularly when there are unresolved factual issues. The decision highlights the court's responsibility to ensure that custody awards are made in the child's best interests after careful consideration of all relevant factors.
As for what’s next, the father can expect a new hearing to be scheduled in the Supreme Court, where both parties will have the opportunity to present their cases. The outcome of this hearing will determine the future custody arrangement for the child. There is no indication in the court filing that the case can be appealed further at this stage.