You are here: / / FAMILY COURT HAD THE POWER TO RETROACTIVELY DISMISS A NEGLECT PETITION...

FAMILY COURT HAD THE POWER TO RETROACTIVELY DISMISS A NEGLECT PETITION AND IMPOSE A SUSPENDED JUDGMENT AFTER MOTHER DEMONSTRATED THE ABILITY TO CARE FOR HER CHILDREN (FIRST DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, in a matter of first impression, determined that Family Court had the power to retroactively impose a suspended judgment and dismiss a neglect petition. Mother had consented to a neglect finding but subsequently turned her life around and demonstrated the ability to care for her four children:

​

This Family Court Act article 10 child neglect proceeding raises an issue of apparent first impression for this Court: whether the Family Court properly granted respondent mother a suspended judgment, “retroactively,” in order to vacate a neglect finding and dismiss a neglect proceeding. Initially, the mother consented to a neglect finding and the Family Court’s dispositional order released the children to the mother, under the supervision of petitioner, Administration for Children Services (ACS), for 12 months. At the end of this period, upon satisfactorily completing the terms of the dispositional order, the mother made a postdisposition motion to modify the dispositional order. The court granted a suspended judgment, retroactively, due to the mother’s compliance with the conditions of the dispositional order, and vacated the neglect finding, as consistent with the children’s best interest. [W]e find not only that the Family Court Act permits such a retroactive remedy, but that the remedy served the children’s best interest under the circumstances of this case. Matter of Leenasia C. (Lamarriea C.–Maxie B.), 2017 NY Slip Op 06050, First Dept 8-8-17

FAMILY LAW (NEGLECT, FAMILY COURT HAD THE POWER TO RETROACTIVELY DISMISS A NEGLECT PETITION AND IMPOSE A SUSPENDED JUDGMENT AFTER MOTHER DEMONSTRATED THE ABILITY TO CARE FOR HER CHILDREN (FIRST DEPT))/NEGLECT (FAMILY COURT HAD THE POWER TO RETROACTIVELY DISMISS A NEGLECT PETITION AND IMPOSE A SUSPENDED JUDGMENT AFTER MOTHER DEMONSTRATED THE ABILITY TO CARE FOR HER CHILDREN (FIRST DEPT))

You might also like
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED THE POST ON LINKEDIN MET THE CRITERIA FOR THE “STRATEGIC LAWSUIT AGAINST PUBLIC PARTICIPATION” (SLAPP) DEFENSE TO THE DEFAMATION ACTION, PLAINTIFFS DEMONSTRATED THE DEFAMATION ACTION HAS A “SUBSTANTIAL BASIS IN LAW;” THEREFORE THE ACTION SURVIVED THE MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO CIVIL RIGHTS LAW 76-A (SECOND DEPT). ​
PROOF OF MAILING REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 NOT MET, BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
HERE THE CITY DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE MOUND OF SNOW AND ICE WHERE PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY SLIPPED AND FELL, WHICH ORDINARILY WOULD SUPPORT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE CITY; HOWEVER PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CITY CREATED THE DANGEROUS CONDITION BY PLOWING, AN EXCEPTION TO THE WRITTEN NOTICE REQUIREMENT (SECOND DEPT).
Glass Plate in Wall Under Demolition Was Not a “Falling Object” within the Meaning of Labor Law 240 (1)
Exclusions from Uninsured Motorist Coverage in Pennsylvania Policy Unenforceable in New York
Suit Against Municipality Based Upon Exercise of a Governmental Function Properly Dismissed—No Special Duty to Plaintiff
INCIDENT REPORTS DID NOT PROVIDE THE CITY WITH NOTICE OF THE ESSENTIAL FACTS OF PLAINTIFF’S NEGLIGENCE AND LABOR LAW CLAIMS, PETITION TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
Defendant Should Have Been Advised of His Right to Be Heard in Resentencing Proceeding Pursuant to CPL 440.46

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

ACTION TO DISSOLVE A CLOSELY HELD CORPORATION BASED UPON BREACH OF A FIDUCIARY... CHILD ABUSE ALLEGATIONS SUPPORTED BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE, NO NEED...