You are here: / / FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE MADE FINDINGS TO ALLOW JUVENILE TO PETITION FOR...
,

FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE MADE FINDINGS TO ALLOW JUVENILE TO PETITION FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS.

The Second Department determined Family Court should have granted the motion for findings to allow a juvenile to petition for special immigrant juvenile state (SIJS):

Based upon our independent factual review, we find that the record fully supports the petitioner’s contention that, because the child’s mother neglected him, reunification with the mother is not a viable option … . Contrary to the Family Court’s determination, the record demonstrated that the physical, mental, or emotional condition of the child had been impaired or was in imminent danger of becoming impaired as a result of the failure of the mother to exercise a minimum degree of care “in supplying the child with adequate food, clothing, shelter or education . . . though financially able to do so or offered financial or other reasonable means to do so” … . Indeed, the petitioner’s testimony at the hearing demonstrated that although the mother received financial assistance to provide for the child’s clothing and education, the mother failed to use such assistance for the child’s benefit. The child’s testimony corroborated the petitioner’s testimony in this respect.

Accordingly, the Family Court should have granted the petitioner’s motion for the issuance of an order making the requisite declaration and specific findings so as to enable the child to petition for SIJS. Matter of Wilson A.T.Z. (Jose M.T.G.–Manuela Z.M.), 2017 NY Slip Op 01215, 2nd Dept 2-15-17

 

FAMILY LAW (SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS, FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE MADE FINDINGS TO ALLOW JUVENILE TO PETITION FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS)/IMMIGRATION LAW (SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS, FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE MADE FINDINGS TO ALLOW JUVENILE TO PETITION FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS)/SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS (SIJS) ( FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE MADE FINDINGS TO ALLOW JUVENILE TO PETITION FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS)

You might also like
WHERE AN ACTION HAS BEEN MARKED OFF AS “INACTIVE,” THERE IS NO NOTE OF ISSUE, THERE HAS BEEN NO 90-DAY DEMAND AND THERE IS NO ORDER DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT, RESTORATION TO THE CALENDAR AT ANY TIME IS AUTOMATIC (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THERE WAS A STORM IN PROGRESS, DEFENDANT’S SNOW REMOVAL MAY HAVE EXACERBATED THE SLIPPERY CONDITION, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED.
​ IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, THE BANK FAILED TO PROVE DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT (EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN REPLY NOT CONSIDERED) AND THE BANK FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE IT NOTIFIED A TENANT OF THE FORECLOSURE AS REQUIRED BY RPAPL 1303 (SECOND DEPT). ​
QUESTIONING OF DEFENDANT, WHO WAS REPRESENTED ON ANOTHER CHARGE, VIOLATED DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO COUNSEL, STATEMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED.
Mistake in Name of Party Did Not Warrant Striking Candidate’s Name from Ballot
DEFENDANTS PROPERLY GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT UNDER THE STORM IN PROGRESS RULE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE 2ND DEPT.
THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED IN SUPPORT OF THE DEFENDANT TOWN’S AND POLICE-OFFICER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS UNEQUIVOCAL AND DEMONSTRATED THE OFFICERS DID NOT VIOLATE THE “RECKLESS DISREGARD” STANDARD WHEN PURSUING PLAINTIFF MOTORCYCLIST, WHO CRASHED AND WAS SERIOUSLY INJURED; THERE WAS NO INDICATION FURTHER DISCOVERY WOULD UNCOVER ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE; THE MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED AS PREMATURE (SECOND DEPT). ​
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, FOUND THAT A DEFENDANT WHO HAD NOT BEEN SERVED WAS A NECESSARY PARTY AND SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE FORECLOSURE ACTION AGAINST OTHER DEFENDANTS ON THAT GROUND (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

CHILD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REMOVED FROM FATHER’S CARE, EVEN THOUGH CHILD... BANK EMPLOYEE’S AFFIDAVIT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE 90 DAY NOTICE WAS PROPERLY...