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
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE ASSAILANT WAS AN INTRUDER AND WHETHER THE LANDLORD HAD NOTICE OF THE DEFECTIVE DOOR LOCK IN THIS THIRD-PARTY ASSAULT CASE; LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT DID NOT PRODUCE AN EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT WITH PLAINTIFF, DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED IT WAS PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL EMPLOYER; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF’S PERSONAL INJURY ACTION WAS PRECLUDED BY HIS ELECTION OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS (FIRST DEPT).
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY (PANYNJ) WAS THE LESSOR OF THE PROPERTY WHERE PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED IN THIS LABOR LAW 241(6) ACTION, IT WAS AN “OWNER” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE LABOR LAW AND, THEREFORE, WAS A PROPER DEFENDANT; ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF WAS NOT AT THE CONSTRUCTION SITE, SHE WAS IN AN AREA USED TO CREATE MATERIALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION SITE, WHICH IS COVERED BY THE LABOR LAW (FIRST DEPT). ​
DEFENDANT DETOXIFICATION FACILITY NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN ACTION BASED UPON THE DEATH OF A MAN WHO WAS TREATED, LEFT AND WAS FOUND DEAD A MONTH LATER, DEFENDANTS POINTED TO GAPS IN PLAINTIFF’S PROOF OF CAUSATION BUT DID NOT AFFIRMATIVELY DEMONSTRATE THE ABSENCE OF CAUSATION (FIRST DEPT).
CONDOMINIUM BOARD OF MANAGERS, NOT INDIVIDUAL CONDOMINIUM OWNERS, IS LIABLE FOR INJURY IN A COMMON AREA.
THE LANDOWNER AND THE TENANT TAXI COMPANY HAD THE SAME PRINCIPAL, A HOSE WAS USED BY INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS TO WASH THE TAXIS, PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY SLIPPED ON THE WATER FROM THE HOSE WHICH FROZE, THE LANDOWNER DID NOT ESTABLISH IT WAS AN OUT OF POSSESSION LANDLORD, THE LANDOWNER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENSE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT BASED UPON THE ALLEGED MISCONDUCT OF TWO JURORS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING (FIRST DEPT).
No Liability for Third Party Attack Inside Apartment Building; No Evidence Defendant Aware of Alleged Door-Lock Defect

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...