You are here: / / FATHER WAS NOT SERVED WITH THE ORDER OF FACT-FINDING AND DISPOSITION IN...
,

FATHER WAS NOT SERVED WITH THE ORDER OF FACT-FINDING AND DISPOSITION IN THE MANNER PRESCRIBED BY FAMILY COURT ACT 1113 (FATHER WAS SERVED BY EMAIL) AND THEREFORE THE 30-DAY APPEAL DEADLINE DID NOT APPLY; FATHER’S STRIKING THE 14-YEAR-OLD CHILD ONCE DURING A MULTI-PERSON MELEE AFTER THE CHILD BROKE THE WINDOW OF FATHER’S CAR WITH A ROCK DID NOT CONSTITUTE NEGLECT (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court, determined: (1) Family Court did not follow the statutory procedure for serving father with the order of fact-finding and disposition and, therefore, father’s appeal was timely; and (2) father’s striking the child once during a multi-person melee, after the child threw a rock at father’s car, did not constitute neglect:

… “[T]here is no evidence in the record that the father was served with the order of fact-finding and disposition by a party or the child’s attorney, that he received the order in court, or that the Family Court mailed the order to the father” … . Instead, despite using a form order that provided typewritten check boxes for the two methods of service by the court mentioned in the statute (i.e., in court or by mail) … , the court here crossed out the word “mailed” and edited the form to indicate that the order was emailed to, among others, the father’s attorney. The statute, however, does not provide for service by the court through email or any other electronic means … . … Inasmuch as the father was served the order by the court via email, which is not a method provided for in Family Court Act § 1113, and there is no indication that he was served by any of the methods authorized by the statute, we conclude that the time to take an appeal did not begin to run and that it cannot be said that the father’s appeal is untimely … .* * *

 … [W]e conclude that, “[g]iven the age of the subject child, the provocation, and the dynamics of the incident, the [father’s] act against [the child] did not constitute neglect” … . The record establishes that, during the course of a multi-person melee that included the 15-year-old sister beating up the 18-year-old daughter of the father’s girlfriend, the 14-year-old child threw a rock at the vehicle causing the window to break, to which provocation the father instantly reacted by striking the child once either in the face or the back of the head … . Petitioner presented no evidence that the child sustained any injury or required medical treatment as a result of the single strike by the father during the altercation, and the police who investigated the incident did not file any charges … . Matter of Grayson S. (Thomas S.), 2022 NY Slip Op 05649, Fourth Dept 10-7-22

Practice Point: Here father was served with the order of fact-finding and disposition by email, a method not prescribed by Family Court Act 1113. Therefore the 30-day time limit for bringing an appeal did not apply and father’s appeal was timely. Father struck the 14-year-old child once during a multi-person melee after the child broke the window of father’s car with a rock. Father’s striking the child, which did not cause injury, did not constitute neglect.

 

You might also like
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, CRITERIA EXPLAINED.
PLAINTIFF’S HUSBAND, THE INSURED, WAS DRIVING WHEN PLAINTIFF WAS SERIOUSLY INJURED IN A TRAFFIC ACCIDENT; PLAINTIFF MAY BE ABLE TO SHOW HER HUSBAND HAD REQUESTED COVERAGE ON HER BEHALF AND, BECAUSE THE INSURER (ALLEGEDLY) NEGLIGENTLY FAILED TO PROVIDE THE COVERAGE, THE INSURER IS OBLIGATED TO COVER HER LOSS, DESPITE HER STATUS AS A NONCLIENT (FOURTH DEPT).
JAIL IS NOT A ‘PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION’ WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE NYS HUMAN RIGHTS LAW; THE STATE DIVISION OF HUMAN RIGHTS THEREFORE DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO HEAR PETITIONER’S ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT ALLEGING UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATION IN JAIL (FOURTH DEPT).
THE POLICE SUSPECTED DEFENDANT HAD SPECIFIC WEAPONS IN A SPECIFIC VEHICLE; AFTER A TRAFFIC STOP, THE POLICE SEARCHED THE CAR AND FOUND A WEAPON; LATER THEY SEARCHED THE CAR AGAIN AND FOUND A SECOND WEAPON; ONLY AFTER THE SEARCHES DID THEY START TO FILL OUT THE INVENTORY SEARCH FORM; THIS WAS NOT A VALID INVENTORY SEARCH; THE WEAPONS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FOURTH DEPT).
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DEFENDANT DID RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ON THE VALIDITY OF THE SERVICE OF PROCESS WHICH REQUIRES A HEARING (FOURTH DEPT).
PERSONAL PROPERTY LOCATED ON REAL PROPERTY SUBJECT TO A TAX FORECLOSURE WAS NOT ABANDONED BY THE OWNER OF THE PERSONAL PROPERTY (FOURTH DEPT).
DIRECT APPEAL, AS OPPOSED TO AN ARTICLE 78, WAS APPROPRIATE IN THIS CONTEMPT PROCEEDING; MOTHER SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO ARGUE AGAINST THE CONTEMPT ADJUDICATIONS (FOURTH DEPT). ​
Criteria for Class Certification Explained (Not Met Here)

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

A MOTION TO SET ASIDE A VERDICT PURSUANT TO CPL 330.30 (1) MUST BE BASED UPON... THE DETERIORATION OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FATHER AND MOTHER WAS A SUFFICIENT...