You are here: / / MOTHER’S APPLICATION FOR RETURN OF THE CHILD AFTER TEMPORARY REMOVAL...

MOTHER’S APPLICATION FOR RETURN OF THE CHILD AFTER TEMPORARY REMOVAL OF THE CHILD IN THIS DERIVATIVE NEGLECT AND ABUSE PROCEEDING SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined that mother’s application for return of the child who had been temporarily removed from the home should not have been granted:

… [T]he Family Court’s determination granting the mother’s application for the return of the subject child lacked a sound and substantial basis in the record. At the hearing, the mother admitted to hitting Sincere G. with an extension cord, leaving welts on his skin, because he would not clean his room and she wanted to get “control” over him. Although the mother testified that she only hit Sincere G. on his arms and legs, photographs admitted into evidence at the hearing clearly show welts across his chest as well. Since that incident, and as of the time of the hearing, the mother had failed to sufficiently address the mental health issues that led to the incident … . Accordingly, we cannot agree that the return of the subject child to the mother’s custody, notwithstanding the conditions that were imposed, would not present an imminent risk to the child’s life or health. The mother’s application for the return of the child should have been denied, and we remit the matter to the Family Court, Kings County, for further proceedings on the petition. Pending those further proceedings, the subject child shall remain in the care and custody of the father, with supervised parental access to the mother, pursuant to the terms and conditions of an order of the Family Court … . Matter of Tatih E. (Keisha T.), 2019 NY Slip Op 00434, Second Dept 1-23-19

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL WHEN DEFENSE COUNSEL TOLD THE COURT HE DID NOT WANT ANY PART OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS GUILTY PLEA (SECOND DEPT).
THE DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED THE CITY DID NOT NOTIFY THEM OF THE NEED TO REPAIR THE ABUTTING PUBLIC SIDEWALK AND THEREBY DEMONSTRATED THEY HAD NO STATUTORY DUTY TO REPAIR THE SIDEWALK; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE PROPERTY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Questions of Fact Raised About Whether Premarital Agreement Was the Product of Overreaching
THE DEFENDANT RESTAURANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL HAD LAST BEEN INSPECTED PRIOR TO THE FALL; THEREFORE THE RESTAURANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE ALLEGED WET CONDITION (SECOND DEPT).
Criteria for a “Special Exception Permit” (Versus a “Variance”) Explained
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DETERMINED DEFENDANT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAIVED DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO TIMELY MOVE FOR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT BECAUSE THE ISSUE WAS DISPOSITIVE AND NEVER LITIGATED; THE BANK’S FAILURE TO TIMELY MOVE FOR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO CPLR 3215 (C) REQUIRED DISMISSAL OF THE BANK’S ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DETERMINED, WITHOUT A HEARING, THAT NEW YORK DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THIS CUSTODY MATTER OR THAT NEW YORK WAS AN INCONVENIENT FORUM; MOTHER HAD RELOCATED TO HAWAII WITH THE CHILDREN (SECOND DEPT).
ARTICLE 78 PETITION WAS NOT SERVED UPON A PERSON AUTHORIZED TO RECEIVE SERVICE ON BEHALF OF THE NYC DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (DEP); ALTHOUGH THE PROCESS SERVER ALLEGED THE PETITION WAS DELIVERED TO AN ATTORNEY AT THE DEP WHO SAID SHE WAS AUTHORIZED TO RECEIVE SERVICE, THE DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL DID NOT APPLY (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

IN THIS HYBRID ARTICLE 78-DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION, THE PORTIONS OF THE PETITION... IN DENYING THE PETITION FOR AN AREA VARIANCE THE ZONING BOARD DID NOT ADDRESS...