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

FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE MADE FINDINGS TO ALLOW THE CHILD TO PETITION FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined Family Court should have made the findings to enable the child to petition for special immigrant juvenile state (SIJS):

… [W]here, as here, the Family Court’s credibility determination is not supported by the record, this Court is free to make its own credibility assessments and overturn the determination of the hearing court… . Based upon our independent factual review, we conclude that the record supports a finding that reunification of the child with his mother is not a viable option based upon parental neglect. The record reflects that the mother failed to meet the educational needs of the child … . The child testified that, although he was prevented from attending school by gang members who beat him while walking to school, the mother did not arrange for transportation, which was within her financial means, but instead, told him to stay home. Additionally, the child was expelled from one school due to excessive tardiness, and he failed the seventh grade … . Further, the mother did not provide adequate supervision, often leaving the then eight-year-old child home alone at night in the neighborhood where he had encountered the gang violence … . Matter of Dennis X. G. D. V., 2018 NY Slip Op 01073, Second Dept 2-14-18

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

You might also like
BECAUSE THERE WAS EVIDENCE PLAINTIFF FELL OFF A BEAM IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION, IN ADDITION TO EVIDENCE HE TRIPPED OVER DEBRIS, THE TRIAL JUDGE ERRED IN REFUSING TO INSTRUCT THE JURY TO DECIDE WHETHER PLAINTIFF FELL OFF THE BEAM, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER REPLACEMENT OF DAMAGED CEILING TILES WAS REPAIR, COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6), OR ROUTINE MAINTENANCE, WHICH IS NOT COVERED (SECOND DEPT).
A PARTY’S ADMISSION IN AN UNCERTIFIED POLICE REPORT IS NO LONGER ADMISSIBLE IN THE 2ND DEPARTMENT AND DECISIONS TO THE CONTRARY SHOULD NO LONGER BE FOLLOWED (SECOND DEPT).
MERE DENIAL OF THE ALLEGATIONS IN A FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT THAT THE PLAINTIFF IS THE OWNER AND HOLDER OF THE NOTE AND MORTGAGE IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO ASSERT THE DEFENSE THAT THE PLAINTIFF LACKS STANDING, PRECEDENT TO THE CONTRARY OVERRULED (SECOND DEPT).
THE REAL PROPERTY PASSED TO THE BENEFICIARY IN THE WILL UPON DEATH, NOT UPON SUBSEQUENT PROBATE; THEREFORE THE CONVEYANCE WAS VALID AND THE DEED SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DEEMED VOID (SECOND DEPT).
THE CITY ORDERED PLAINTIFF TO REPAIR A WATER LEAK ON PLAINTIFF’S PROPERTY WHICH THE CITY CLAIMED CAUSED A SINK HOLE IN THE ABUTTING ROAD; PLAINTIFF PAID FOR EXCAVATING THE AREA AND FIXING THE ROAD; PLAINTIFF SUED THE CITY ALLEGING THERE WAS NO WATER LEAK AND THE CITY NEGLIGENTLY ORDERED HER TO REPAIR THE ROAD; THE NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED (NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH PLAINTIFF), BUT THE UNJUST ENRICHMENT CAUSE OF ACTION BASED ON PLAINTFF’S PAYING FOR THE REPAIR OF THE PUBLIC ROAD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN AFFORDED THE OPPORTUNITY TO CURE A DEFAULT IN MONTHLY PAYMENTS ON A LOAN BEFORE PLAINTIFF SOUGHT TO ENFORCE THE TERMS OF THE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT, WHICH WOULD RESULT IN DEFENDANT OWING MORE THAN TWICE WHAT REMAINED TO BE PAID (SECOND DEPT). ​
COVERAGE FOR CLAIMS ALLEGING PAYMENT OF INADEQUATE WAGES AND RETALIATION FOR BRINGING SUIT PRECLUDED BY EXCLUSION FOR EMPLOYMENT-RELATED WRONGFUL ACTS.

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

SUPREME COURT, SUA SPONTE, SET ASIDE AN IN-COURT STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT IN... INABILITY TO AGREE ON CHILD’S RELIGIOUS TRAINING CONSTITUTED A CHANGE...