You are here: / / ALTHOUGH A CHILD WAS PRESENT IN THE HOME WHEN FATHER STRUCK HIS PREGNANT...
,

ALTHOUGH A CHILD WAS PRESENT IN THE HOME WHEN FATHER STRUCK HIS PREGNANT GIRLFRIEND, THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THE CHILD SAW OR HEARD THE INCIDENT AND NO EVIDENCE THE CHILD WAS UPSET BY THE INCIDENT; THE NEGLECT AND DERIVATIVE NEGLECT (OF THE THEN UNBORN CHILD) FINDINGS REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the evidence did not support the findings that father neglected a child and derivatively neglected a child who was not yet born at the time of the incident. The findings were based on an incident in which father struck his girlfriend, who was pregnant, while a child, Jolie M., was in the house. However, the evidence did not demonstrate Jolie M. witnessed or heard the incident:

The testimony of the father’s girlfriend and an ACS child protective specialist established that the father struck his girlfriend in the mouth while Jolie M. was in her nearby bedroom down the hallway. However, the testimony also indicated that Jolie M. did not see the incident or any resulting injuries, did not hear the father’s girlfriend’s plea for the father to stop hitting her, and was otherwise unaware that a domestic violence incident, as opposed to a mere verbal argument, was occurring … . Moreover, no evidence was offered to suggest that Jolie M. was frightened or upset by the incident, and the testimony established that, when recounting the events in a subsequent interview, the child presented a calm demeanor, interacted normally and comfortably with the father, and reportedly felt safe with the father … . In the absence of evidence that Jolie M.’s physical, mental, or emotional condition was impaired or in danger of becoming impaired by the father’s acts of violence against his girlfriend, the court’s finding that the father neglected that child is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence … .

Consequently, the Family Court’s further finding that the father derivatively neglected Jose M. based on the same domestic violence incident was not supported by a preponderance of the evidence … . Matter of Jose M. (Jose M.), 2025 NY Slip Op 04094, Second Dept 7-9-25

Practice Point: To prove neglect based upon domestic violence there must be proof the child saw or heard the incident and was upset by it.

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT SUBMIT THE BUSINESS RECORDS RELEVANT TO DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT, RENDERING THE AFFIDAVIT ALLEGING DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT HEARSAY (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT DINER’S SECURITY GUARD KNOCKED PLAINTIFF TO THE GROUND AND CHOKED HIM; WHETHER THE DINER DEFENDANTS ARE VICARIOUSLY LIABLE DEPENDED UPON WHETHER THE SECURITY GUARD WAS ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT AT THE TIME OF THE ASSAULT; THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE THE JURY WITH AN INTERROGATORY ON THE SCOPE-OF-EMPLOYMENT QUESTION REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).
Supreme Court Erred In Refusing to Appoint a Guardian—However, Petitioner Was Not the Appropriate Choice for the Guardian
TRANSCRIPT OF FAMILY COURT ACT 1028 HEARING SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN USED AS A REPLACEMENT FOR AN ABUSE-NEGLECT FACT-FINDING HEARING BECAUSE THE PROOF REQUIREMENTS ARE DIFFERENT AND BECAUSE THERE WAS NO FINDING THAT THE WITNESS AT THE 1028 HEARING WAS UNAVAILABLE (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF WAS ON A LADDER WHEN INJURED, THE INJURY WAS NOT CAUSED BY GRAVITY, LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED, DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT CONTROL OVER THE INJURY-PRODUCING WORK TO BE LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 200.
ALTHOUGH THE CHILD WAS 17 AND HAD A LONG STANDING PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP WITH MOTHER’S HUSBAND, THE DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN APPLIED TO DISMISS MOTHER’S PETITION FOR GENETIC MARKER TESTING TO DETERMINE PATERNITY; THE CHILD WAS AWARE FROM A YOUNG AGE THAT THE PUTATIVE FATHER WAS THE CHILD’S BIOLOGICAL FATHER AND THERE WAS NO SHOWING THE PATERNITY PETITION WAS NOT IN THE CHILD’S BEST INTERESTS (SECOND DEPT).
A FOREIGN DEFAULT JUDGMENT MAY BE ACCORDED FULL FAITH AND CREDIT IN NEW YORK BY A PLENARY ACTION OR A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN LIEU OF COMPLAINT; THERE IS NO NEED FOR PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER THE DEFENDANT (SECOND DEPT).
BANK MOVED FOR AN ORDER OF REFERENCE WITHIN ONE YEAR OF DEFAULT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, THE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS ABANDONED (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

TO WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN A SLIP AND FALL CASE BASED ON LACK OF NOTICE... THE ARGUMENT THAT THE ARBITRATOR’S AWARD, WHICH ALLOWED REINSTATEMENT...