You are here: / / APPELLANT PROPERLY FOUND TO BE A PERSON LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CHILD,...

APPELLANT PROPERLY FOUND TO BE A PERSON LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CHILD, CRITERIA EXPLAINED.

The First Department, affirming a neglect finding, explained that appellant was properly found to be “a person legally responsible for the subject child:”

A person legally responsible for a child is defined as the child’s “custodian, guardian, or any other person responsible for the child’s care at the relevant time.” A “[c]ustodian may include any person continually or at regular intervals found in the same household as the child when the conduct of such person causes or contributes to the . . . neglect of the child” (Family Ct Act § 1012[g]). A person who “acts as the functional equivalent of a parent in a familial or household setting” is a person legally responsible for a child’s care … .

The determination of whether a particular person has acted as the functional equivalent of a parent is a discretionary, fact-intensive inquiry which will vary according to the circumstances in each case. Factors to be considered include the frequency and nature of the contact, the nature and extent of the control exercised by appellant over the child’s environment, the duration of appellant’s contact with the child, and appellant’s relationship with the child’s parent … .

Appellant testified that he cared for the younger children every work day by taking them to school and picking them up, preparing meals, cleaning the home, preparing the children’s clothing, grocery shopping, and providing financial assistance to the household. The school social worker and appellant both testified that M.W. lived in the home in September 2014, when the incident took place. Although appellant later changed his testimony concerning her residence, the court properly credited his initial statement and found that he was a person legally responsible for M.W. Given her age, she did not require the same hands-on care as the younger children, but his testimony reflected that he contributed to the functioning of the household of which she was a part and had frequent regular contact with her … . Matter of Keniya G. (Avery P.), 2016 NY Slip Op 07752, 1st Dept 11-17-16

 

FAMILY LAW (APPELLANT PROPERLY FOUND TO BE A PERSON LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CHILD, CRITERIA EXPLAINED)/NEGLECT (APPELLANT PROPERLY FOUND TO BE A PERSON LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CHILD, CRITERIA EXPLAINED)/PERSON LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR CHILD (FAMILY LAW, NEGLECT, APPELLANT PROPERLY FOUND TO BE A PERSON LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CHILD, CRITERIA EXPLAINED)

You might also like
UNDER CAYMAN ISLANDS LAW, THE SHAREHOLDER’S DERIVATIVE CAUSES OF ACTION WERE PROPERLY DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN TRIP AND FALL CASE PROPERLY GRANTED.
DNA Evidence Which Excluded Defendant Was Not Enough to Warrant Vacation of Conviction, or Even a Hearing on the Motion to Vacate
Denial of Application for Renewal of General Contractor’s Registration Based Upon a Conviction Which Preceded a Prior Renewal Was Arbitrary and Capricious
AN EMAIL INFORMING PLAINTIFF THAT DEFENDANT LAW FIRM WOULD NOT APPEAL THE RULING OF THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPELLATE PANEL DID NOT UNEQUIVOCALLY TERMINATE THE FIRM’S REPRESENTATION OF PLAINTIFF IN THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION MATTER (FIRST DEPT).
13-YEAR-OLD WHO, AS A FIRST OFFENSE, PARTICIPATED IN AN ASSAULT (USING A MINI OR SOUVENIR BASEBALL BAT) OF A COUPLE BY HER FATHER AND HER FATHER’S GIRLFRIEND PROPERLY ADJUDICATED A JUVENILE DELINQUENT AND SENTENCED TO A 12-MONTH PERIOD OF PROBATION WITH MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES AND SCHOOL MONITORING, STRONG TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FIRST DEPT). ​
KESHA, A RECORDING ARTIST, MADE PUBLIC STATEMENTS THAT HER MUSIC PRODUCER, GOTTWALD, HAD DRUGGED AND SEXUALLY ABUSED HER; GOTTWALD WAS PROPERLY AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN HIS DEFAMATION ACTION; GOTTWALD DID NOT HAVE TO PROVE MALICE BECAUSE HE WAS NOT A GENERAL-PURPOSE OR LIMITED-PURPOSE PUBLIC FIGURE; TWO DISSENTERS DISAGREED (FIRST DEPT).
THE USE OF ICE PACKS WAS NOT PART OF THE DEFENDANT MANUFACTURER’S BURN-TREATMENT SYSTEM; THEREFORE THE DEFENDANT COULD NOT BE HELD LIABLE BY THE INJURED PLAINTIFF FOR THE FAILURE TO WARN AGAINST APPLYING ICE PACKS TO BARE SKIN (FIRST 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

PAUCITY OF INFORMATION PROVIDED TO DEFENDANT CONCERNING THE BASIS FOR HER ARREST... STANDARD OF REVIEW IN COURT OF APPEALS FOR MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT REQUIRED...