You are here: / / WHERE THERE IS A DISCREPANCY THE ORDER MUST BE CONFORMED WITH THE DECISION...
,

WHERE THERE IS A DISCREPANCY THE ORDER MUST BE CONFORMED WITH THE DECISION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department noted a discrepancy between the decision and the order. Therefore the order was conformed to the decision:

… [W]e note that, in its bench decision, Family Court determined that the child ,,, was derivatively neglected. Inasmuch as there is a conflict between the decision and the order in appeal No. 1, that order must be conformed to the decision (… see generally CPLR 5019 [a]). We therefore modify the order … by vacating that part of the order determining that the child was derivatively abused and substituting therefor a determination that the child was derivatively neglected. Matter of Aaren F. (Amber S.), 2020 NY Slip Op 01739, Fourth Dept 3-13-20

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT AFFIDAVIT DID NOT ADDRESS ONE CAUSE OF ACTION IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE; THEREFORE THAT CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).
Hospital Does Not Have a Duty to Prevent a Patient from Leaving the Hospital Against Medical Advice or to Ensure Patient’s Safe Return Home
EVIDENCE THE CHILD WAS OFTEN ABSENT FROM SCHOOL WARRANTED A HEARING ON FATHER’S PETITION FOR A MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY (FOURTH DEPT).
INFANT CAN BE LIABLE FOR INJURY CAUSED BY A DOG OWNED BY HIS FATHER; PUNITIVE DAMAGES CLAIM PROPERLY SURVIVED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
No “Extraordinary Circumstances” Existed to Justify Granting Primary Custody of Child to Grandparents
FAILURE TO RULE ON A MOTION FOR A TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL IS NOT A DENIAL OF THE MOTION; THE MATTER MUST BE SENT BACK FOR A RULING (FOURTH DEPT).
THE WARRANT AUTHORIZING THE SEARCH OF THE CONTENTS OF DEFENDANT’S CELL PHONE DID NOT RESTRICT THE SEARCH TO EVIDENCE OF ANY PARTICULAR CRIME AND DID NOT INCORPORATE THE POLICE INVESTIGATOR’S AFFIDAVIT WHICH PURPORTEDLY LAID OUT THE BASIS FOR FINDING PROBABLE CAUSE; THE WARRANT DID NOT MEET THE “PARTICULARITY REQUIREMENT” (FOURTH DEPT).
“Employer” of Independent Contractor Not Liable for Contractor’s Alleged Negligence

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

RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT CONVICTION NOT SUPPORTED BY THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE;... DEFENDANT, WHO CO-OWNED THE PROPERTY FOR A TWO-YEAR PERIOD, DEMONSTRATED HE...