You are here: / / EXPUNGEMENT NOT AVAILABLE FOR CHILD NEGLECT CASE REFERRED TO THE FAMILY...
,

EXPUNGEMENT NOT AVAILABLE FOR CHILD NEGLECT CASE REFERRED TO THE FAMILY ASSESSMENT RESPONSE TRACK (FAR TRACK).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, determined the statutory scheme for a potential child-neglect case referred to the Family Assessment Response Track (FAR track) does not provide a mechanism for expungement. Here a potential educational neglect case was referred to the FAR track and ultimately no action was taken by the caseworker and the case was closed. The petitioners requested expungement:

Petitioners contend that the right to seek early expungement may be inferred from the silence of Social Services Law § 427-a on this topic. We disagree. Principles of statutory construction teach that “the failure of the Legislature to include a substantive, significant prescription in a statute is a strong indication that its exclusion was intended” … . Moreover, this is not a case in which the two statutes that petitioners seek to interpret in identical fashion “relate to the same subject matter, contain identical language and were adopted together” … . Rather, the FAR track was created as a new and entirely separate means of addressing certain allegations of child abuse in a program geared toward the provision of social services, rather than an investigation assessing blame. In other words, the subject matter of the FAR track cannot be deemed identical to that of a traditional child abuse investigation. Matter of Corrigan v New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs., 2017 NY Slip Op 01020, CtApp 2-9-17

FAMILY LAW (EDUCATIONAL NEGLECT, EXPUNGEMENT NOT AVAILABLE FOR CHILD NEGLECT CASE REFERRED TO THE FAMILY ASSESSMENT RESPONSE TRACK (FAR TRACK))/CHILD ABUSE (EDUCATIONAL NEGLECT, EXPUNGEMENT NOT AVAILABLE FOR CHILD NEGLECT CASE REFERRED TO THE FAMILY ASSESSMENT RESPONSE TRACK (FAR TRACK))/CHILD NEGLECT (EDUCATIONAL NEGLECT, EXPUNGEMENT NOT AVAILABLE FOR CHILD NEGLECT CASE REFERRED TO THE FAMILY ASSESSMENT RESPONSE TRACK (FAR TRACK))/EDUCATIONAL NEGLECT (EXPUNGEMENT NOT AVAILABLE FOR CHILD NEGLECT CASE REFERRED TO THE FAMILY ASSESSMENT RESPONSE TRACK (FAR TRACK))/EXPUNGEMENT (EDUCATIONAL NEGLECT, EXPUNGEMENT NOT AVAILABLE FOR CHILD NEGLECT CASE REFERRED TO THE FAMILY ASSESSMENT RESPONSE TRACK (FAR TRACK))/SOCIAL SERVICES LAW  (EDUCATIONAL NEGLECT, EXPUNGEMENT NOT AVAILABLE FOR CHILD NEGLECT CASE REFERRED TO THE FAMILY ASSESSMENT RESPONSE TRACK (FAR TRACK))/FAMILY ASSESSMENT RESPONSE TRACT (FAR TRACK) (EDUCATIONAL NEGLECT, EXPUNGEMENT NOT AVAILABLE FOR CHILD NEGLECT CASE REFERRED TO THE FAMILY ASSESSMENT RESPONSE TRACK (FAR TRACK))

You might also like
POLICE OFFICER HAD REASONABLE GROUNDS TO PULL OVER PETITIONER’S CAR AFTER THE CAR CROSSED THE FOG LINE WITH A BLINKER ON AND THEN MOVED BACK INTO THE LANE, REVOCATION OF DRIVER’S LICENSE FOR FAILURE TO SUBMIT TO A CHEMICAL TEST AFFIRMED (CT APP).
THE COVID PROTOCOLS WERE IN EFFECT DURING DEFENDANT’S TRIAL; THE JURORS WERE REQUIRED TO WEAR FACE MASKS WHEN THEY WERE NOT BEING INDIVIDUALLY QUESTIONED DURING VOIR DIRE; THE INABILTY TO SEE THE JURORS’ FULL FACES DID NOT DEPRIVE DEFENDANT OF HIS RIGHT TO BE PRESENT DURING JURY SELECTION AND DID NOT VIOLATE HIS DUE PROCESS RIGHTS (CT APP).
THE SEARCH OF A SMALL EARBUD CASE IN DEFENDANT-PAROLEE’S POCKET WAS NOT REASONABLY RELATED TO THE CLAIMED PURPOSE OF THE PAROLE OFFICERS’ PRESENCE IN DEFENDANT’S RESIDENCE, I.E., A SEARCH FOR A PAROLE ABSONDER; THE HEROIN FOUND IN THE EARBUD CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (CT APP).
Potential Versus Actual Conflict of Interest
Enhanced Sentencing for Second Child Sexual Assault Felony Offenders Is Required by Penal Law 70.07; Language in Criminal Procedure Law 400.19 Can Not Be Interpreted to Mean the People Can Decide Not to Seek the Enhanced Sentence
Town Could Not Unilaterally Revoke Its Policy of Providing Vehicles for Certain Town Employees—Any Such Change Must Be Negotiated
DESIGNATING PETITION PERMEATED BY FRAUD INVALIDATED; THREE JUDGE DISSENT (CT APP).
THE SO-CALLED TWO-HOUR RULE, REQUIRING THE REQUEST FOR A DWI BREATH TEST BE MADE AND THE REFUSAL WARNINGS BE GIVEN WITHIN TWO HOURS OF ARREST, DOES NOT APPLY TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE LICENSE REVOCATION HEARINGS HELD BY THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES (DMV); THEREFORE THE FACT THAT THE PETITIONER WAS ASKED TO TAKE THE BREATH TEST AND WAS GIVEN THE REFUSAL WARNINGS THREE HOURS AFTER ARREST DID NOT PRECLUDE THE DMV FROM CONSIDERING PETITIONER’S TEST REFUSAL (CT APP).

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

ELEMENTS OF OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT, MALFEASANCE AND NONFEASANCE, EXPLAINED; COCONSPIRATOR... DENIAL OF INMATE’S REQUEST FOR WITNESS TESTIMONY AND INCOMPLETE INVESTIGATION...