You are here: / / FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE MADE FINDINGS WHICH WOULD ALLOW THE CHILD TO PETITION...
,

FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE MADE FINDINGS WHICH WOULD ALLOW THE CHILD TO PETITION FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS (SIJS) (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Family Court, determined the court should have made findings which would allow the child to petition for Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS):

The evidence shows that the subject child was unmarried and under the age of 21 at the time of the special findings hearing and order (see generally 8 USC § 1101[a][27][J]; 8 CFR 204.11[c] … ). The Family Court’s appointment of a guardian rendered the child dependent on a juvenile court … .

The evidence also established that reunification with the child’s parents was not viable due to neglect or abandonment. The child testified that, with no prior warning, his father left him in the United States with his uncle (petitioner), and that his parents later told him that they could not support him and did not want him back. The child further stated, and petitioner corroborated, that he had only occasional contact with his parents, and received no gifts or support from them, since coming here. This was sufficient to “evince[] an intent to forego . . . parental rights and obligations” or a failure to exercise a minimum degree of care to supply the child with adequate food, clothing, shelter, education, or supervision … .

In determining whether reunification was viable, the Family Court should not have refused to consider evidence of circumstances which occurred after the child’s 18th, but before his 21st, birthday … .

The evidence also demonstrated that it is not in the best interests of the child to return to Thailand, where his parents reside, or to be sent to live in Bangladesh, where he has citizenship but has never resided. The child presented evidence that his parents would not accept him if he returned to Thailand, that his Thai visa was on the verge of expiring and he had no way to renew it, and that he had no other place to live or way to support himself in Thailand or Bangladesh … . He also presented evidence that he was doing well in petitioner’s care … . Matter of Khan v Shahida Z., 2020 NY Slip Op 03480, First Dept 6-18-20

 

You might also like
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL PROPERLY SERVED VALID SUBPOENAS ON THE VIRTUAL CURRENCY COMPANIES PURSUANT TO GENERAL BUSINESS LAW 352 (MARTIN ACT) IN A FRAUD INVESTIGATION; ONCE THE MOTIONS TO VACATE OR MODIFY THE EX PARTE ORDER RE: THE ISSUANCE OF THE SUBPOENAS WAS DETERMINED, THE COURT NO LONGER HAD ANY AUTHORITY OVER THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S INVESTIGATION; THEREFORE THE VIRTUAL CURRENCY COMPANIES’ SUBSEQUENT MOTION TO DISMISS WAS NOT PROPERLY BEFORE SUPREME COURT OR THE APPELLATE DIVISION (FIRST DEPT).
PRODUCTS LIABILITY ACTION AGAINST ELEVATOR MANUFACTURER SHOULD HAVE SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, LABOR LAW 240(1) INAPPLICABLE TO ELEVATOR ACCIDENT.
LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION WERE ISSUED ON THE LAST DAY OF THE SIX MONTHS ALLOWED BY CPLR 205 (a) TO REFILE A DISMISSED ACTION, THE MOTION TO DISMISS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; ARGUMENT THAT SUPREME COURT USED THE WRONG DATE TO CALCULATE THE SIX-MONTH PERIOD PROPERLY RAISED AND CONSIDERED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF FELL FROM AN UNGUARDED ELEVATED PLATFORM; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (FIRST DEPT).
THE NYPD OFFICER WHO EMPLOYED A PROHIBITED CHOKEHOLD ON ERIC GARNER, WHICH CONTRIBUTED TO ERIC’S DEATH, WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED FROM THE NYPD (FIRST DEPT).
EVIDENCE OF DEBRIS ON FLOOR WAS SUFFICIENT TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANTS WERE LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 241(6) AND 200, PLAINTIFF STEPPED INTO A HOLE BUT DID NOT KNOW WHETHER THE HOLE WAS OBSCURED BY THE DEBRIS (FIRST DEPT).
Accident Occurred Within 15-Day Grace Period Allowed for Repair of Road Defects/City Could Not Be Held Liable
DEFENDANT DRIVER WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS BICYCLE-CAR TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE; PLAINTIFF BICYCLIST WAS TRAVELING THE WRONG WAY ON A ONE-WAY STREET AND DID NOT SLOW DOWN APPROACHING THE INTERSECTION WHERE HE COLLIDED WITH THE SIDE OF DEFENDANT’S CAR (FIRST 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

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL THE PRODUCTION OF TAX RETURNS AFTER THE PARTIES’... BANK WHICH ISSUED AN “OFFICIAL CHECK” DRAWN ON A DIFFERENT BANK,...