You are here: / / EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT TEMPORARY REMOVAL OF CHILD FROM FATHER’S...
,

EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT TEMPORARY REMOVAL OF CHILD FROM FATHER’S CUSTODY DURING THE PENDENCY OF A CHILD PROTECTIVE PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the evidence did not support temporary removal of the child from father’s custody during the pendency of a child protective proceeding:

“[O]nce a child protective petition has been filed, Family Court Act § 1027(a)(iii) authorizes the court to conduct a hearing to determine whether the child’s interests require protection, including whether the child should be removed from his or her parent”… . Upon such a hearing, temporary removal is only authorized where the court finds it necessary “to avoid imminent risk to the child’s life or health” … . “In determining a removal application pursuant to Family Court Act § 1027, the court must engage in a balancing test of the imminent risk with the best interests of the child and, where appropriate, the reasonable efforts made to avoid removal or continuing removal'” … .

Here, the petitioner failed to establish that Chloe would be subject to imminent risk if she remained in the father’s care pending the outcome of the neglect proceeding … . The hearing evidence showed that at no time did the father inflict excessive corporal punishment upon Chloe. In addition, the evidence showed that Dasanie may have been coached by Chloe’s mother, and Dasanie recanted, before several individuals, the allegations that the father inflicted excessive corporal punishment upon her. Matter of Chloe-Elizabeth A.T. (Albert T.), 2018 NY Slip Op 08666, Second Dept 12-19-18

 

You might also like
FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE MADE RULINGS ON CUSTODY AND MOTHER’S PETITION TO RELOCATE BEFORE COMPLETING THE HEARING (SECOND DEPT).
THE INABILITY TO IDENTIFY THE SLIPPERY SUBSTANCE WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL WAS FATAL TO THE LAWSUIT; ALLEGING THE FLOOR WAS SHINY OR SLIPPERY IS NOT ENOUGH, CRITERIA EXPLAINED IN SOME DEPTH (SECOND DEPT).
Trial Court Has the Discretion to Determine the Best Venue for Consolidated Actions—Here a County Other than the County Where the First Action Was Brought Was Properly Determined to Be the Most Appropriate Venue
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO RENEW A MOTION FOR MORE TIME TO CONDUCT AN IME SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT). ​
Where Extrinsic Evidence Indicates a Party’s Interpretation of Ambiguous Language Is the Only Fair Interpretation, Summary Judgment Is Appropriate
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE WAS PREMATURE AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
THE DEFENDANT DID NOT CONSENT, IN A WRITING SIGNED IN OPEN COURT, TO THE SUBSTITUTION OF AN ALTERNATE JUROR AFTER DELIBERATIONS HAD BEGUN REQUIRING A NEW TRIAL; THE SHOWUP IDENTIFICATION OF DEFENDANT WAS UNREASONABLE AND UNDULY SUGGESTIVE REQUIRING DISMISSAL OF THE COUNTS RELATED TO ONE OF THE TWO ROBBERIES (SECOND DEPT). ​
ONCE AGAIN, BECAUSE THE RELEVANT BUSINESS RECORDS WERE NOT ATTACHED TO THE AFFIDAVITS, THE STATEMENTS IN THE AFFIDAVITS WERE HEARSAY; PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT PROVE STANDING TO FORECLOSE OR DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT (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

BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF REAL PROPERTY... CROSS-MOTION TO EXTEND THE TIME FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS PURSUANT TO CPLR 306-b...