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

FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE MADE FINDINGS WHICH WOULD ALLOW THE CHILDREN TO APPLY FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined Family Court should have made findings which would allow the children to petition for special immigrant juvenile state (SIJS):

… [B]ased upon our independent factual review, the record supports a finding that reunification of the children with their father is not viable due to the father’s abandonment of the children …., and educational neglect of the child … . Further, the record supports a finding that it would not be in the best interests of the children to return to Guatemala, their previous country of nationality or country of last habitual residence … . Matter of Briceyda M. A. X. (Hugo R. A. O.–Maria H. X. C.), 2021 NY Slip Op 00180, Second Dept 1-13-21

 

You might also like
Although Plaintiff Limited Liability Company’s Articles of Incorporation Were Not Filed When It Took Title to Real Property—It May Have Validly Taken Title Pursuant to the “De Facto Corporation Doctrine”
Plaintiff Did Not Demonstrate Standing—No Proof Underlying Debt Was Transferred to the Plaintiff Along with the Mortgage
Plaintiff’s Requests to be Deposed (in China) by Remote Electronic Means and to Use a Video Transcription of the Deposition In Lieu of Testifying at Trial Should Not Have Been Denied
COTENANT ACQUIRED THE OTHER COTENANT’S INTEREST BY ADVERSE POSSESSION.
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, GRANTED RELIEF NOT REQUESTED IN PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION AND SHOULD NOT HAVE CONSIDERED EVIDENCE NOT BEFORE IT; THE ORDER SETTLING A CLASS ACTION FOR UNPAID WAGES AND OVERTIME SHOULD NOT HAVE DECLARED INVALID CERTAIN OPT-OUT STATEMENTS WHICH WERE NOT REFERRED TO IN PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION AND WERE NOT OTHERWISE BEFORE THE COURT (SECOND DEPT).
PATERNITY PETITION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL GROUNDS IN THIS ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION CASE (SECOND DEPT).
City’s Operation of a Parking Garage is a Proprietary Not Governmental Function—City Can Be Sued For Failing to Provide Adequate Safety to Patrons
JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED IT COULD CONSIDER THE ACTIONS OF COMPLAINANT’S HUSBAND IN DETERMINING WHETHER THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE APPLIED IN THIS ASSAULT CASE (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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT FINDING THE APPELLANT IN THIS JUVENILE DELINQUENCY... THE JURY WAS ERRONEOUSLY ALLOWED TO CONSIDER A THEORY OF BURGLARY WITH WHICH...