You are here: / / Neglect Proceeding “Adjourned in Contemplation of Dismissal” Properly Con...

Neglect Proceeding “Adjourned in Contemplation of Dismissal” Properly Considered and Findings of Forensic Psychologist Properly Ignored in Modification of Custody Proceeding

In affirming Family Court’s modification of custody, the Second Department noted that Family Court properly considered a neglect proceeding that was adjourned in contemplation of dismissal (not a determination on the merits) and Family Court was not required to accept the recommendations of the court-appointed forensic psychologist.  Matter of Selliah v Penamente, 2013 NY Slip Op 04815, 2nd Dept 6-26-13

 

You might also like
THE DEFENDANT DID NOT CONSENT, IN A WRITING SIGNED IN OPEN COURT, TO THE SUBSTITUTION OF AN ALTERNATE JUROR AFTER DELIBERATIONS HAD BEGUN REQUIRING A NEW TRIAL; THE SHOWUP IDENTIFICATION OF DEFENDANT WAS UNREASONABLE AND UNDULY SUGGESTIVE REQUIRING DISMISSAL OF THE COUNTS RELATED TO ONE OF THE TWO ROBBERIES (SECOND DEPT). ​
Unpleaded Cause of Action Can Be Raised in Opposition to Summary Judgment—Must Be Supported by Proof in Admissible Form
DEFENDANT MADE A SUDDEN LEFT TURN IN FRONT ACROSS PLAINTIFF’S RIGHT OF WAY, PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE ACTUAL NOTICE OF THE SUMMONS WAS NOT RECEIVED IN TIME TO DEFEND THE ACTION, AND DID NOT PROVIDE A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR THE DEFAULT; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
City Did Not Demonstrate Entitlement to Qualified Immunity for a Planning Decision Re: Design of Playground Equipment
HEARSAY DID NOT PROVE BANK HAD STANDING IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
THE SUPPRESSION MOTION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED; THE POLICE DID NOT HAVE REASONABLE SUSPICION WHEN DEFENDANT’S CAR WAS BLOCKED BY A POLICE CAR; THE APPELLATE COURT MAY CONSIDER A RULING WHICH WAS NOT EXPLICIT BASED ON THE CONTEXT OF THE RULING WITHIN THE RECORD (SECOND DEPT).
THE PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS ROAD-DEFECT SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE NINE-MONTH DELAY WAS NOT EXPLAINED; THE CITIY DID NOT HAVE TIMELY NOTICE OF THE POTENTIAL LAWSUIT; AND PETITIONER DID NOT SHOW THE CITY WOULD NOT BE PREJUDICED BY THE DELAY (SECOND 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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Company Hired on On-Call Basis for Elevator Repair Not Liable for Allegedly... Supreme Court’s Denial of Application for Stationary Engineer License Based...