You are here: / / TAKING THE APPEAL AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE, THE FIRST DEPARTMENT...
, ,

TAKING THE APPEAL AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE, THE FIRST DEPARTMENT DETERMINED THE ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN’S SERVICES (ACS) DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE APPPELLANT JUVENILE WAS PROPERLY TRANSFERRED FROM A NONSECURE TO A SECURE FACILITY; THE JUVENILE’S MISBEHAVIOR WAS NOT THAT SERIOUS; ACS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT HAD EXHAUSTED LESS SEVERE ALTERNATIVES (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Family Court, considering an otherwise moot appeal because the issue recurs and juveniles are only placed for a limited amount of time, determined the Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) did not demonstrate the need to place the appellant (juvenile) in a secure facility:

Under Family Court Act § 355.1(2), Family Court can modify a dispositional order “upon a showing of a substantial change of circumstances” by the agency, to place a youth in a secure facility, if “the respondent has demonstrated by a pattern of behavior that he or she needs a more structured setting and the social services district has considered the appropriateness and availability of a transfer to an alternative non-secure or limited secure facility” … . Notably, behaviors meriting a modification include “disruptions in facility programs; continuously and maliciously destroying property; or, repeatedly committing or inciting other youth to commit assaultive or destructive acts” … .

Here, ACS alleged that two incidents where appellant went absent without consent (AWOC) over the course of two months constituted a “pattern of behavior” warranting his placement in a secure facility. The record reflects that, during the first AWOC incident …, appellant “darted out the front door and ran” from a non-secure facility. During the second incident …, appellant fled through a damaged door at a limited secure facility after other youths broke the door while trying to escape. While this behavior is problematic, it simply does not rise to the level of seriousness reflected in the examples provided in the statute, i.e. “continuously and maliciously destroying property” or “repeatedly committing or inciting other youth to commit assaultive or destructive acts” … .

ACS also failed to show that it first “considered the appropriateness and availability of a transfer to an alternative non-secure or limited secure facility” before seeking modification as it was required to do … . According to ACS policies, “[m]odifications must be considered as an option only when all efforts to avoid the modification have been exhausted.” … ACS did not present any affirmations or provide any witness testimony regarding the limited secure facility’s ability to address appellant’s behavior … . Matter of J.D., 2025 NY Slip Op 06807, First Dept 12-9-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into the level of a juvenile’s misbehavior which will justify placement in a secure facility, as well as the less severe alternatives which must be tried or demonstrated ineffective first.

 

You might also like
UNDER THE FACTS, PLAINTIFF CAN ASSERT A CLAIM FOR TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT AGAINST DEFENDANT, EVEN THOUGH BOTH ARE SIGNATORIES TO THE MULTILATERAL CONTRACTS; THE PARTIES HAVE DIFFERENT RIGHTS AND DUTIES UNDER THE CONTRACTS (FIRST DEPT).
Special Proceedings, Here a Motion to File a Late Notice of Claim, Are Subject to the Same Standards and Rules as Motions for Summary Judgment—Supreme Court Should Not Have Considered New Evidence Presented for the First Time in Reply Papers
No Liability for Third Party Attack Inside Apartment Building; No Evidence Defendant Aware of Alleged Door-Lock Defect
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER GENERAL CONTRACTOR LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) FOR PLAINTIFF’S FALL FROM A LADDER BASED ON CONTRACTUAL SAFETY RESPONSIBILITIES, AND QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A SUBCONTRACTOR IS LIABLE AS A STATUTORY AGENT OF THE OWNER (FIRST DEPT).
HEATING AGREEMENT WAS A COVENANT WHICH RUNS WITH THE LAND, ORAL WAIVER MAY BE VALID DESPITE WRITING REQUIREMENT IN THE COVENANT.
MISSING WITNESS CHARGE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GIVEN, NO SHOWING REQUEST FOR THE CHARGE WAS TIMELY; ADVERSE INFERENCE CHARGE RE: EXPERT WHO DID NOT BRING SUBPOENAED NOTES SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN.
ALTHOUGH THE PIPE WAS A DANGEROUS CONDITION INHERENT IN THE WORK, IT WAS AN AVOIDABLE DANGEROUS CONDITION AND THERE REMAIN QUESTIONS ABOUT MEASURES TAKEN TO MINIMIZE THE TRIPPING HAZARD (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF FELL THROUGH A STOREFRONT WINDOW IN DEFENDANT PLANET ROSE’S KARAOKE BAR; GIVEN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE FAILURE TO INSTALL TEMPERED GLASS MAY HAVE BEEN NEGLIGENT; BY THE TERMS OF THE LEASE, THE OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD, DEFENDANT 219 AVE. A, COULD NOT BE HELD LIABLE (FIRST 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

ALTHOUGH THE DEFENSE IN THIS MURDER CASE WAS BASED ON THE LACK OF EVIDENCE THAT... HERE, IN SEEKING LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST A CITY HOSPITAL...