You are here: / / FAMILY COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY DENYING THE REQUEST FOR AN ADJOURNMENT...
,

FAMILY COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY DENYING THE REQUEST FOR AN ADJOURNMENT IN CONTEMPLATION OF DISMISSAL IN THIS JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined Family Court abused its discretion in denying appellant’s request for an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal in this juvenile delinquency proceeding:

The Family Court has broad discretion in determining whether to adjourn a proceeding in contemplation of dismissal … . Although, as it is often stated, a respondent is not entitled to an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal merely because this was his or her “first brush with the law” … , a respondent’s criminal and disciplinary history is nevertheless relevant to a court’s discretionary determination of whether to adjourn a proceeding in contemplation of dismissal … . Other relevant factors include, but are not necessarily limited to, a respondent’s history of drug or alcohol use … , a respondent’s association with gang activity … , a respondent’s academic and school attendance record … , the nature of the underlying incident … , a respondent’s decision to accept responsibility for his or her actions … , any recommendations made in a probation or mental health report … , the degree to which the respondent’s parent or guardian is involved in the respondent’s home and academic life … , and the ability of the respondent’s parent or guardian to provide adequate supervision … .

Here, the Family Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the appellant’s application pursuant to Family Court Act § 315.3(1) for an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal. This proceeding constituted the appellant’s first contact with the court system, the appellant took responsibility for his actions, and the record demonstrates that he had learned from his mistakes. Matter of Brian M., 2020 NY Slip Op 03785, Second Dept 7-8-20

 

You might also like
IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, PLAINTIFF’S AFFIANT DID NOT HAVE FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE OF THE MAILING PRACTICES OF THE PARTY RESPONSIBLE FOR MAILING THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE TO THE DEFENDANT; JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
HERE THE FORECLOSURE ABUSE PREVENTION ACT (CPLR 213(4)) ESTOPPED PLAINTIFF FROM ARGUING THE DEBT HAD NOT BEEN ACCELERATED ON A GROUND NOT RAISED AND ADJUDICATED PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (SECOND DEPT).
THE FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO THE PROSPECTIVE JUROR WHO WAS AN ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY IN THE OFFICE PROSECUTING THE DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT THE LIABILITY OF THE ELEVATOR COMPANY UNDER A NEGLIGENT MAINTENANCE THEORY OR A RES IPSA LOQUITUR THEORY REQUIRED THE DENIAL OF THE COMPANY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; PLAINTIFF ALLEGED THE ELEVATOR SUDDENLY ACCELERATED AND THEN STOPPED (SECOND DEPT).
Failure to Inquire About Defendant’s Understanding of Intoxication Defense Required Vacation of Guilty Plea
GENERAL CONTRACTOR DID NOT EXERCISE ANY SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER PLAINTIFF’S WORK AND THEREFORE WAS NOT LIABLE FOR AN INJURY ARISING FROM THE MANNER OF PLAINTIFF’S WORK FOR A SUBCONTRACTOR; LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S AFFIDAVIT DID NOT STATE IT WAS BASED ON FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE AND THE UNCERTIFIED POLICE REPORT WAS INADMISSIBLE; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS PROPERTY-DAMAGE CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
HERE PLAINTIFF DID NOT IDENTIFY AN EXPERT WITNESS AS REQUIRED BY CPLR 3101 AND THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED; HOWEVER PLAINTIFF ALLEGED SCARRING AND BURNING DURING LASER HAIR REMOVAL AND MAY STILL BE ABLE TO PROVE ORDINARY NEGLIGENCE THROUGH THE TESTIMONY OF HIS TREATING PHYSICIAN AND OTHER EVIDENCE; THE NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT STRICTLY COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF REAL PROPERTY... TENANT’S MOTION TO REMOVE AN EVICTION PROCEEDING FROM CIVIL COURT AND...