You are here: / / THERE WAS NO SHOWING THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICE’S (DSS’S)...
,

THERE WAS NO SHOWING THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICE’S (DSS’S) VIOLATION OF A COURT ORDER LIMITING THE CHILD’S VISITATION WITH STEPMOTHER PREJUDICED THE CHILD’S RIGHTS, THEREFORE FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE HELD DSS IN CONTEMPT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Family Court, determined that the Department of Social Services (DSS) should not have been held in contempt for violation of an order limiting the child’s visitation with the stepmother. DSS acknowledged it was aware of the order and acknowledged violating it. But there was no showing of prejudice to the child’s rights:

“A party seeking a finding of civil contempt based upon the violation of a court order must establish by clear and convincing evidence that the party charged with contempt had actual knowledge of a lawful, clear and unequivocal order, that the charged party disobeyed that order, and that this conduct prejudiced the opposing party’s rights” … . DSS does not dispute that it was aware of the court’s order limiting visitation with the stepmother, nor does it dispute that it did not follow that order, thereby establishing the first two elements for a civil contempt finding. Notably, however, DSS contacted the court immediately after receiving the order to advise that the stepmother had been certified as a foster parent and that the child was residing [*3]with her in that capacity. The AFC’s petition, filed shortly thereafter, alleged that DSS had violated the order and sought to have the child placed with the foster parents, but failed to allege or present evidence establishing, by clear and convincing evidence, that DSS’s failure to comply with the December 2016 order had “prejudiced the [child’s] rights” … . Matter of Nilesha RR. (Loretta RR.), 2019 NY Slip Op 04063, Third Dept 5-23-19

 

You might also like
THE COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE AND MARKETS HAD JURISDICTION OVER THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE TOWN AND A FARM IN WHICH THE TOWN ALLEGED THE FARM WAS RUNNING A COMMERCIAL MULCHING OPERATION IN VIOLATION OF THE TOWN CODE; THE COMMISSIONER PROPERLY DETERMINED THE FARM WAS NOT VIOLATING THE TOWN CODE (THIRD DEPT).
SPECIAL FUND IS LIABLE FOR DEATH BENEFITS WHERE THE CLAIM WAS TRANSFERED TO THE SPECIAL FUND BEFORE THE FUND WAS CLOSED IN 2014 AND THE CLAIMANT DIED AFTER THE FUND WAS CLOSED (THIRD DEPT).
THE NEW YORK EARLY MAIL VOTER ACT, EFFECTIVE JANAURY 1, 2024, IS CONSTITUTIONAL (THIRD DEPT).
UNLIKE AN APPLICATION FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW OF A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW JUDGE’S (WCLJ’S) DECISION, WHICH HAS A 30-DAY TIME LIMIT, AN APPLICATION FOR A REHEARING OR TO REOPEN A CLAIM MUST BE MADE IN A REASONABLE TIME (THIRD DEPT).
IN A PARTIAL CONCURRENCE/PARTIAL DISSENT TWO JUSTICES WOULD HAVE REDUCED DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE TO TIME SERVED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE BECAUSE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT DEFENDANT’S LIFE-EXPECTANCY AFTER REMOVAL OF A BRAIN TUMOR IS TWO TO THREE YEARS, THE DEFENDANT’S AGE AT THE TIME OF THE OFFENSE (18), AND THE DEFENDANT’S ABSENCE FROM THE ROOM WHERE THE VICTIM WAS STABBED (THIRD DEPT).
THE EVIDENCE THAT DEFENDANT INTENDED TO PURCHASE DEALER QUANTITIES OF COCAINE FROM A DEALER (SANCHEZ) AND COOKED CRACK COCAINE FOR THAT DEALER WAS NOT LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF AN INTENT TO ORGANIZE OR LEAD THE DEALER’S DISTRIBUTION NETWORK; CONSPIRACY CONVICTON REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).
WARRANTLESS ENTRY INTO DEFENDANT’S APARTMENT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY THE EMERGENCY EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CONVICTION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS CONVICTED OF 37 COUNTS OF SEXUAL OFFENSES, THE TESTIMONY AT TRIAL RENDERED 26 COUNTS DUPLICITOUS REQUIRING REVERSAL (THIRD 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

THE TERM ‘AUTOMATIC OVERRIDE’ DOES NOT MANDATE THAT AN OFFENDER... THE LABOR LAW’S EXCLUSION OF FARM WORKERS FROM THE DEFINITION OF ‘EMPLOYEES’...