You are here: / / IN THIS NEGLECT PROCEEDING AGAINST STEPMOTHER, THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS...
,

IN THIS NEGLECT PROCEEDING AGAINST STEPMOTHER, THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS FOR THE ISSUANCE OF ORDERS OF PROTECTION IN FAVOR OF THE CHILDREN WERE NOT MET (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, vacating the five-year orders of protection in favor of the children (re: respondent stepmother) in this neglect proceeding, determined the statutory criteria for issuance of the orders of protection were not met:

… [T]he stepmother contends that the court erred in issuing orders of protection in favor of the children with a duration of five years. We agree, and we therefore reverse the orders of protection … . In an article 10 proceeding, the court may issue an order of protection, but such order shall expire no later than the expiration date of “such other order made under this part, except as provided in subdivision four of this section” (Family Ct Act § 1056 [1]). Subdivision (4) of section 1056 allows a court to issue an independent order of protection until a child’s 18th birthday, but only against a person “who was a member of the child’s household or a person legally responsible . . . , and who is no longer a member of such household at the time of the disposition and who is not related by blood or marriage to the child or a member of the child’s household.” Here, the orders of protection do not comply with Family Court Act § 1056 (1) and (4) because no other dispositional orders were issued with respect to the children at the time the court issued the orders of protection and the stepmother, although no longer living in the home, remains married to the children’s mother … . Moreover, the court erred in issuing the dispositional orders of protection without first holding a dispositional hearing. “The Family Court Act directs that a dispositional hearing be held as a condition precedent to the entry of a dispositional order such as the order of protection granted by Family Court here” … . Matter of Kayla K. (Emma P.-T.), 2022 NY Slip Op 02668, Fourth Dept 4-22-22

 

You might also like
TOWN COURT PROPERLY ORDERED THE EUTHANASIA OF RESPONDENT’S DOG AFTER THE DOG ATTACKED AND REPEATEDLY BIT A THREE-YEAR-OLD CHILD; THE DISSENTER ARGUED PETITIONERS DID NOT ESTABLISH THAT THEIR CHILD SUFFERED SERIOUS INJURY WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE AGRICULTURE AND MARKETS LAW (FOURTH DEPT).
Insurance Company’s Documents Protected by Attorney-Client Privilege/Where there is a Discrepancy Between an Order and the Related Decision, the Decision Controls
IN THIS “CHILD VICTIMS ACT” ACTION ALLEGING SEXUAL ABUSE IN THE 1950’S BY EMPLOYEES OF THE NOW DISSOLVED YMCA NIAGARA FALLS, THERE ARE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE DE FACTO MERGER DOCTRINE APPLIES RENDERING YMCA BUFFALO LIABLE FOR THE TORTS OF YMCA NIAGARA FALLS (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER WAS THE ALTER EGO OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER, PLAINTIFF’S ONLY REMEDY FOR INJURY FROM A FALL WAS UNDER THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT IN THIS INTERSECTION TRAFFIC ACCIDENT HAD THE RIGHT OF WAY WHEN THE TRUCK IN WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS A PASSENGER APPARENTLY FAILED TO YIELD THE RIGHT OF WAY AND PULLED INTO DEFENDANT’S PATH; THE MAJORITY HELD THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT SAW WHAT SHE SHOULD HAVE SEEN; THE DISSENTERS ARGUED DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT COMPLAINED THAT HIS ATTORNEY HAD NOT FILED OMNIBUS MOTIONS BUT DEFENSE COUNSEL SAID HE HAD FILED THEM AND THE COURT SAID IT HAD RECEIVED THEM; IN FACT, HOWEVER NO MOTIONS HAD BEEN FILED; DEFENDANT’S COMPLAINTS ABOUT HIS ASSIGNED COUNSEL WARRANTED FURTHER INQUIRY BY THE COURT; DEFENDANT WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT).
Employer’s Failure to Demonstrate a Proper Inquiry Was Made to Determine Whether Reasonable Accommodations Were Possible for a Disabled Employee Precluded Summary Judgment
Criteria for CPL 440.20 Motion Explained/Predicate Offenses Must Run Concurrently

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

ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED, DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA WAS VACATED... REFUSING TO TAKE A DWI BREATH TEST IS NOT AN OFFENSE (FOURTH DEPT).