You are here: / / THE PROOF FATHER NEGLECTED THE CHILD WAS PRIMARILY BASED UPON HIS INCARCERATION,...
,

THE PROOF FATHER NEGLECTED THE CHILD WAS PRIMARILY BASED UPON HIS INCARCERATION, WHICH WAS NOT SUFFICIENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, over a concurrence, determined the proof respondent father neglected the child was insufficient. The neglect finding appeared to be primarily based upon father’s incarceration:

We note that a determination of whether respondent neglected the child was complicated by the fact that no DNA analysis was performed to establish paternity until late 2020, over a year after the child’s birth. * * *

At the fact-finding hearing, … most of the proof upon which petitioner relied was … hearsay. Although no objections were raised, the caseworker testified to the mother’s statements regarding paternity and to respondent’s mother’s statements. In the end, petitioner’s proof failed to establish how respondent’s plan to have his mother care for the child fell below the “minimum degree of care” or how it impaired the child or placed him in imminent danger of becoming impaired … . Petitioner’s proof seemed to be predicated solely on respondent’s incarceration, which cannot alone form the basis for a neglect finding … . Due to the accumulation of errors by petitioner, and the insufficiency of its proof, we find that petitioner failed to establish that respondent neglected the subject child … . Matter of Elijah AA. (Alexander AA.), 2023 NY Slip Op 02812, Third Dept 5-25-23

Practice Point: Here the proof father neglected the child was insufficient. Despite father’s request, a paternity test was not performed for more than a year after the child’s birth. Once father was incarcerated two months before the child’s birth, his mother refused to help out with care for the child, but father was not so informed. Neglect cannot be based solely on father’s incarceration.

 

You might also like
RELEASE REFERRED ONLY TO INJURIES SUFFERED BY DEFENDANT AND THEREFORE DID NOT PRECLUDE A SUIT STEMMING FROM INJURIES TO ANOTHER.
Work-Related Call to Coworker Which Triggered Harassment by Coworker’s Husband Was Proper Basis for Workers’ Compensation Benefits
PHARMACEUTICALS COURIERS WERE EMPLOYEES.
DEFENDANT’S FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO BE PRESENT AT RESENTENCING WAS VIOLATED, DESPITE DEFENSE COUNSEL’S STATEMENT THAT DEFENDANT’S PRESENCE WAS NOT NECESSARY (THIRD DEPT).
UPON RESPONDENT’S FAILURE TO APPEAR, FAMILY COURT DISMISSED RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL AND HELD THE ORDER-OF-PROTECTION HEARING IN RESPONDENT’S ABSENCE; RESPONDENT WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS OF LAW; ORDER VACATED (THIRD DEPT).
THE SENTENCING COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN DENYING A YOUTHFUL OFFENDER ADJUDICATION, DESPITE THIS BEING DEFENDANT’S FIRST CONTACT WITH THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM, HIS ACQUITTAL OF THE MOST SERIOUS CHARGES, AND AFFIDAVITS FROM SEVERAL JURORS IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT; THERE WAS A SUBSTANTIVE DISSENT (THIRD DEPT).
ORDER WHICH IS NOT ISSUED PURSUANT TO A MOTION ON NOTICE IS NOT APPEALABLE, A MOTION TO VACATE IS THE PROPER PROCEDURE.
Anesthesiologist Was Not an Employee

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 PROOF OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AT THE FORTHCOMING CUSTODY TRIAL SHOULD NOT HAVE... WHERE A JURY NOTE DOES NOT UNAMBIGUOUSLY DESCRIBE A REQUESTED EXHIBIT, THE NOTE...