You are here: / / A FAMILY OFFENSE PROCEEDING MAY BE BROUGHT IN THE COUNTY WHERE THE FAMILY...
, ,

A FAMILY OFFENSE PROCEEDING MAY BE BROUGHT IN THE COUNTY WHERE THE FAMILY MEMBER RESIDES, AS WELL AS IN THE COUNTY WHERE THE OFFENSE OCCURRED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the family offense proceeding should not have been dismissed based on the allegation venue was improper. A family offense proceeding may be brought based upon the residence of the family member, as well as were the offense took place:

A family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8 “may be originated in the county in which the act or acts referred to in the petition allegedly occurred or in which the family or household resides or in which any party resides” … . Here, since the mother resides in Rockland County, the mother commenced this proceeding in a proper venue. Matter of VanDunk v Bonilla, 2022 NY Slip Op 04554, Second Dept 7-13-22

Practice Point: A family offense proceeding may be brought in the county where the family member resides, as well as the county where the offense occurred.

 

You might also like
County Court Should Not Have Dismissed the Indictment on a Ground Not Raised by the Defendant Without Giving the People the Opportunity to Address the Issue
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS ON THE GROUND OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
COMPANY WHICH PURCHASED MANUFACTURER OF ALLEGEDLY DEFECTIVE LADDER NOT LIABLE, COMPANY DID NOT CONTINUE MANUFACTURER’S BUSINESS (SECOND DEPT).
T-Shirts With the Victim’s Photo Worn by Family Members During the Murder Trial Did Not Deprive Defendant of a Fair Trial
DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS DEFAULT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT PRECLUDE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS BASED UPON PLAINTIFF BANK’S FAILURE TO MOVE FOR A JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE WITHIN ONE YEAR AS REQUIRED BY KINGS COUNTY LOCAL RULE 8 (SECOND DEPT).
FATHER, WHO WAS INCARCERATED, SHOULD HAVE BEEN PRODUCED FOR THE PROCEEDING TO APPOINT A GUARDIAN FOR THE CHILD, NEW HEARING ORDERED (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE PARENTS’ INCOME WAS NOT PROPERLY CALCULATED FOR CHILD-SUPPORT PURPOSES (SECOND DEPT).
A JUDGMENT SUBMITTED AFTER THE 60-DAY DEADLINE IMPOSED BY 22 NYCRR 202.48 (WHERE THE DECISION DIRECTS SUBMISSION OF THE JUDGMENT) CAN BE ACCEPTED BY THE COURT IN THE EXERCISE OF DISCRETION (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 THREE-DAY FACT-FINDING HEARING RELATED TO THE NEGLECT PETITION RE: SERENA,... THE DEFENDANT WAS CHARGED WITH CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE BASED UPON STRIKING...