You are here: / / Father Whose Parental Rights Had Been Terminated Had Standing to Seek Modification...

Father Whose Parental Rights Had Been Terminated Had Standing to Seek Modification or Vacatur of Order of Protection

The Fourth Department determined that a father whose parental rights had been terminated had standing to seek modification or vacatur of a ten-year-old order of protection.  The Fourth Department wrote:

Pursuant to Family Court Act § 656, the court may issue an order of protection in conjunction with any other order issued pursuant to article 6, i.e., an order terminating parental rights. We conclude that the order terminating the father’s parental rights is separate and distinct from the order of protection entered in conjunction with that termination order. Thus, the father has standing to challenge the validity of that separate order of protection.  Matter of Anna B …, CAF 12-00562, 303, 4th Dept, 4-26-13

 

You might also like
WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A REVENUE PURCHASE AGREEMENT AND A LOAN?
Restitution to Police Department Re: Expenses of Drug Bust Proper
Regulation Mandating a 25-Year Look-Back for Relicensing (Driver’s License) Is a Valid Exercise of the Department of Motor Vehicles’ Authority/Regulation Was Correctly Applied to Deny Petitioner’s Application for Relicensing
Conclusory Allegations of Customer Confusion Insufficient to Defeat Motion for Summary Judgment
THE SCHOOL BOARD DID NOT VIOLATE THE OPEN MEETINGS LAW WHEN IT CONSULTED WITH ITS ATTORNEY IN A CLOSED SESSION BEFORE DECIDING NOT TO RENEW PLAINTIFF FOOTBALL COACH’S EMPLOYMENT; THERE IS AN EXCEPTION TO THE OPEN MEETINGS LAW FOR LEGAL ADVICE (FOURTH DEPT).
THE SORA COURT SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED THAT THE DEFENDANT DID NOT REOFFEND DURING AN EXTENDED TIME WHEN HE WAS NOT SUPERVISED AS A MITIGATING FACTOR WHICH MAY WARRANT A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE IN THIS SORA RISK-LEVEL PROCEEDING (FOURTH DEPT).
THE LEASE REQUIRED THE OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD TO REPAIR STRUCTURAL DEFECTS IN THE ROOF AND WALLS; THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER WATER ENTERED THE PREMISES THROUGH DEFECTS IN THE ROOF AND WALLS CAUSING THE ALLEGED DANGEROUS CONDITION, A CRACK IN THE FLOOR WHICH ALLEGEDLY CONTRIBUTED TO PLAINTIFF’S INJURY (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS A PRIME, NOT A GENERAL, CONTRACTOR AND DEMONSTRATED HE DID NOT EXERCISE SUPERVISION OR CONTROL OVER PLAINTIFF’S WORK; THEREFORE DEFENDANT WAS NOT LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6); HOWEVER, DEFENDANT DID EXERCISE SOME CONTROL OVER WORK-SITE SAFETY AND THEREFORE MAY BE LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 200 (FOURTH DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Incarcerated Father Entitled to Reinstatement of His Petition for Visitatio... Hearsay Evidence in Neglect Proceeding Was Not Admissible—Petition Dismis...