You are here: / / DRUG-RELATED NEGLECT FINDING NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEP...
,

DRUG-RELATED NEGLECT FINDING NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court, determined the evidence did not support a drug-related neglect finding:

We agree with respondents that petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence “that [the children's] physical, mental or emotional condition[s have] been impaired or [are] in imminent danger of becoming impaired” (… see Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i]). Although the evidence adduced at the fact-finding hearing established that respondents used illicit drugs, the mere use of illicit drugs is insufficient to support a finding of neglect … , and we conclude that petitioner failed to establish the requisite causal nexus between respondents' illicit drug use and the alleged impairment or imminent danger of impairment of the children's physical, mental, or emotional condition … . Petitioner produced no evidence that respondents ever used drugs in the presence of the children … . Moreover, although the younger child suffered two accidents, each of which resulted in a fractured wrist, petitioner offered no evidence that respondents were using drugs or under the influence of drugs at the time the accidents occurred, respondents' innocent explanations for the accidents were uncontroverted at the fact-finding hearing, and there was no evidence of any impairment or imminent danger of impairment to the older child arising from respondents' alleged drug use. We further conclude that petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case of neglect by submitting evidence that respondents used drugs “to the extent that [such use] has or would ordinarily have the effect of producing in the user thereof a substantial state of stupor, unconsciousness, intoxication, hallucination, disorientation, or incompetence, or a substantial impairment of judgment, or a substantial manifestation of irrationality” (§ 1046 [a] [iii]). Absent from the record was any evidence as to the duration or frequency of respondents' drug use … . Matter of Delanie S. (Jeremy S.), 2018 NY Slip Op 06677, Fourth Dept 10-5-18

FAMILY LAW (DRUG-RELATED NEGLECT FINDING NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT))/NEGLECT (FAMILY LAW, DRUG-RELATED NEGLECT FINDING NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT))

You might also like
THE LACK-OF-STANDING DEFENSE WAS NOT RAISED IN THE ANSWER OR THE PREANSWER MOTION TO DISMISS; IT IS NOT A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT; THEREFORE THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE ACTION ON THAT GROUND (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT SCHOOL DISTRICT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE APPLICABILITY OF THE STORM-IN-PROGRESS RULE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
PLAINTIFFS SUED A FOSTER-CHILD PLACEMENT SERVICE FOR FRAUD AND NEGLIGENCE AFTER THE FOSTER CHILD SEXUALLY ASSAULTED PLAINTIFFS’ BIOLOGICAL CHILD; THE FRAUD ACTION WAS NOT TIME-BARRED BECAUSE THE PLACEMENT SERVICE’S MERE KNOWLEDGE OF THE FOSTER CHILD’S SEXUAL BEHAVIOR IN 2008 DID NOT START THE SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, AND THE NEGLIGENCE ACTION WAS SUPPORTED BY A DUTY OWED TO PLAINTIFFS’ BIOLOGICAL CHILD (FOURTH DEPT).
THERE WAS AN “UNWARNED” THREE-FOOT DROP ON THE OTHER SIDE OF A DOOR IN A REMOTE AREA OF THE HOSPITAL; PLAINTIFF, A HOSPITAL WORKER, WAS INJURED BY THE THREE-FOOT DROP; THE ARCHITECTURAL MALPRACTICE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON THE GROUND NO DUTY WAS OWED TO THE PLAINTIFF; THE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY JUSTIFIABLY RELIED ON THE ARCHITECT’S SPECIFICATIONS AND COULD NOT BE HELD LIABLE (FOURTH DEPT).
Right to Counsel Did Not Attach When Community Activist Told Police Defendant’s Attorney Was On His Way to the Station
THE DEFENDANT EMPLOYEE WAS ON HIS WAY HOME FROM A CORPORATE MEETING HELD BY HIS EMPLOYER WHEN THE CAR ACCIDENT HAPPENED; THE EMPLOYER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT BECAUSE THE DRIVER WAS NOT ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
A STACK OF DRYWALL LEANING AGAINST A WALL AND PARTIALLY BLOCKING A DOORWAY FELL OVER ON PLAINTIFF’S ANKLE AS PLAINTIFF ATTEMPTED TO MOVE IT; THE LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT). ​
Cleaning Clogged Drain Was Routine Maintenance, Not Covered by Labor Law 240(1)

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

WAIVER OF APPEAL INVALID AND GUILTY PLEA VACATED BECAUSE DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED... DEFENDANTS’ EVIDENCE DESIGNED TO RAISE A FEIGNED QUESTION OF FACT, PLAINTIFF’S...