You are here: / / PETITIONER DID NOT HAVE THE STATUTORILY REQUIRED CLOSE RELATIONSHIP WITH...
,

PETITIONER DID NOT HAVE THE STATUTORILY REQUIRED CLOSE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE RESPONDENT IN THIS FAMILY OFFENSE PROCEEDING; FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Family Court, determined Family Court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over this family offense proceeding because the petitioner and the respondent were not members of the same family or household and had not been in an intimate relationship:

The court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this family offense proceeding brought by the foster mother of respondent’s biological children. Petitioner failed to establish that she and respondent, who are not members of the same family or household, are or have been in an intimate relationship (see Family Court Act § 812[1][e] …). Petitioner testified that she did not even know respondent’s first name. It appears from the record that petitioner’s contact with respondent has been limited to scheduling visitation with the children at the agency and, perhaps, interacting with respondent when she went to petitioner’s home to pick up the children for visits. Matter of Veronica C. v Ariann D., 2020 NY Slip Op 03612, First Dept 6-25-20

 

You might also like
HEIRS OF A JEWISH VIENNESE ART COLLECTOR, FRITZ GRUNDBAUM, KILLED BY THE NAZIS IN 1941, DEMONSTRATED THEY WERE ENTITLED TO POSSESSION OF CERTAIN ARTWORKS IN THE GRUNDBAUM COLLECTION WHICH WERE ALLEGEDLY LOOTED BY THE NAZIS (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, DEFENDANTS GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND LESSEE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DEFENDANT OUT OF POSSESSION LANDLORD SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT).
Evidence Which Is “Material and Necessary” in the Context of Discovery Is Much Broader in Scope than Evidence Which Is Admissible at Trial
ALTHOUGH VACATUR OF A DEFAULT JUDGMENT WAS NOT AVAILABLE UNDER CPLR 5015, VACATUR WAS AVAILABLE UNDER CPLR 317.
HEATING AGREEMENT WAS A COVENANT WHICH RUNS WITH THE LAND, ORAL WAIVER MAY BE VALID DESPITE WRITING REQUIREMENT IN THE COVENANT.
RES IPSA LOQUITUR DOCTRINE MAY APPLY IN THIS ELEVATOR MALFUNCTION CASE (FIRST DEPT).
NO NEED TO SHOW THE LADDER WAS DEFECTIVE IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION; IT WAS SUFFICIENT TO SHOW THE LADDER WAS UNSECURED AND FELL WHEN PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY DEBRIS (FIRST DEPT).
Verdict for Negligent Design Upheld—1987 Car Did Not Have a Starter Interlock Device that Would Prevent Car from Starting When In Gear

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

Copyright © 2023 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THE OPINION CHANGING THE CRITERIA FOR THE DEPRAVED-INDIFFERENCE MENS REA CAME... QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISIONS RE: DEBRIS IN PASSAGEWAYS...