You are here: / / EVIDENCE FATHER POSSESSED COCAINE WITH INTENT TO SELL WAS NOT SUFFICIENT...
, ,

EVIDENCE FATHER POSSESSED COCAINE WITH INTENT TO SELL WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT A NEGLECT FINDING; THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE FATHER USED DRUGS, EXPOSED THE CHILDREN TO DRUG-DEALING, OR STORED THE DRUGS WHERE THE CHILDREN COULD ACCESS THEM (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the evidence that father possessed four ounces of cocaine did not support the neglect finding. There was no evidence the children were exposed to drug-dealing and the drugs were stored above where the children could access them:

Family Court’s finding that the father neglected the children was not supported by a preponderance of the evidence … . … [Father’s] intent to sell these illicit drugs was insufficient, without more, to warrant a finding of neglect. The record … contained no evidence establishing that the father engaged in drug transactions within the house or that he otherwise exposed the children to drug-trafficking activities … . Nor was there evidence adduced at the hearing as to whether the father regularly engaged in the sale of drugs, or the manner in which he intended to sell the cocaine. Moreover, although the officers discovered the cocaine within the father’s bedroom closet, it was located on a five- or six-foot-high shelf and was otherwise stored in a manner that was not readily accessible to the children … . Finally, there was no indication in the record that the father ever used cocaine or any other illicit drugs. Absent evidence that the father’s conduct caused the requisite harm to the children or otherwise placed them in imminent danger of such harm, the court should not have found that he neglected them … . Matter of Jefferson C.-A. (Carlos T.-F.), 2024 NY Slip Op 02701, Second Dept 5-15-24

Practice Point: Storing four ounces of cocaine in a closet where the children could not access it, without more, is not sufficient for a neglect finding against father. Although there was evidence father intended to sell the drugs, there was no evidence father used drugs or exposed the children to drug-dealing.

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT WAS HOUSED FIVE HOURS AWAY FROM THE COURT AND HIS ATTORNEY, REPEATED REQUESTS TO MOVE DEFENDANT CLOSER WERE GRANTED BUT NOT COMPLIED WITH, DEFENDANT MOVED TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA AT SENTENCING, GIVEN THE POSSIBILITY DEFENDANT HAD EFFECTIVELY BEEN DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL, INQUIRY INTO THE VOLUNTARINESS OF OF THE PLEA SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONDUCTED (SECOND DEPT).
THERE WAS A DE FACTO MERGER SUCH THAT THE SUCCESSOR CORPORATION WAS LIABLE FOR THE TORTS OF ITS PREDECESSOR; THE CORPORATE VEIL WAS PROPERLY PIERCED TO FIND THE OWNER OF THE CORPORATION LIABLE (SECOND DEPT).
FAILURE TO ADDRESS THE CREATION-OF-THE-DEFECT THEORY OF RECOVERY REQUIRED DENIAL OF DEFENDANT-VILLAGE’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION.
Anders Brief Rejected
​ NEW YORK HAS LONG-ARM JURISDICTION OVER A SINGLE ALLEGED ACT OF SEXUAL ABUSE WHICH OCCURRED IN NEW YORK IN 1975 OR 1976 WHEN PLAINTIFF WAS ON A FIELD TRIP; THE ACTION WAS BROUGHT BY A CONNECTICUT RESIDENT AGAINST A CONNECTICUT DEFENDANT AND ALLEGED SEVERAL OTHER ACTS OF ABUSE WHICH TOOK PLACE IN CONNECTICUT; BECAUSE THE ALLEGED TORT TOOK PLACE IN NEW YORK, THE CONNECTICUT PLAINTIFF CAN TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE EXTENDED STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN NEW YORK’S CHILD VICTIMS ACT (SECOND DEPT).
A CROSS-MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO CPLR 3215 (C) IS NOT AN APPEARANCE AND DOES NOT WAIVE THE LACK-OF-JURISDICTION DEFENSE; INFANT DEFENDANT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS NOT SERVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CPLR 309; THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION (SECOND DEPT)
DEFENDANT’S UNTIMELY ANSWER WAS REJECTED BY PLAINTIFF BUT PLAINTIFF DEEMED THE ANSWER TO BE A NOTICE OF APPEARANCE; DEFENDANT DID NOT OBJECT; AN APPEARANCE IS THE EQUIVALENT OF SERVICE OF A SUMMONS; THEREFORE DEFENDANT WAIVED THE LACK-OF-PERSONAL-JURISDICTION DEFENSE (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH SUPREME COURT DENIED DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS A GUN FOUND IN A VEHICLE, THE COURT DID NOT ARTICULATE THE REASON FOR THE DENIAL, THE SECOND DEPT DID NOT THEREFORE HAVE THE POWER TO REVIEW THE ISSUE, MATTER SENT BACK SO SUPREME COURT CAN ARTICULATE ITS REASONING (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 REPORT OF THE INCIDENT IN WHICH PETITIONER WAS INJURED DID NOT PROVIDE THE... UNDER THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW PRESUMPTION IN SECTION 21, AN ASSAULT...