You are here: / / MOTHER’S PETITION SEEKING FINDINGS TO ALLOW HER CHILD TO APPLY FOR...
,

MOTHER’S PETITION SEEKING FINDINGS TO ALLOW HER CHILD TO APPLY FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, MOTHER WAS NOT REQUIRED TO BE FINGERPRINTED OR TO SUBMIT CERTAIN DOCUMENTATION, JUDGE’S COMMENTS ABOUT THE CHILD’S SPEAKING SPANISH REQUIRED TRANSFER TO A DIFFERENT JUDGE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Family Court should not have dismissed mother’s petition to have Family Court make the findings necessary for he child to apply for special Immigrant juvenile status (SIJS) and should not have required mother to be fingerprinted and provide unnecessary documentation. The Second Department further held that the petition must be transferred to a different judge because of the judge’s comments about the child’s speaking Spanish:

Contrary to the Family Court’s determination, in a proceeding such as this pursuant to Family Court Act § 661(a) for “[g]uardianship of the person of a minor or infant,” there is no express statutory fingerprinting requirement … , or any express requirement to submit documentation pertaining to the Office of Children and Family Services … . Further, under the circumstances of this case, the court erred in dismissing the petition and denying the motion for “failure to prosecute” based upon the mother’s failure to submit documentation regarding, inter alia, the child’s enrollment in school … .

Since the Family Court dismissed the guardianship petition and denied the mother’s motion without conducting a hearing or considering the child’s best interests, we remit the matter to the Family Court, Nassau County, for a hearing and a new determination thereafter of the petition and the motion … . In addition, in light of certain remarks made by the Family Court Judge during the course of the proceedings, we deem it appropriate that the matter be heard by a different Judge. The remarks included: that the child “should be speaking English a lot better” after having been in the United States for two years; that the child should “make some friends who speak English”; that if the child only spoke Spanish, “what are you gonna do, you’re gonna be hanging around just where you are”; and that the child “[c]an’t speak English, doesn’t go to school, it’s wonderful. It’s a great country America.” These remarks were inappropriate and cannot be countenanced. Matter of A. v P., 2018 NY Slip Op 03674, Second Dept 5-23-18

​FAMILY LAW (SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS, MOTHER’S PETITION SEEKING FINDINGS TO ALLOW HER CHILD TO APPLY FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, MOTHER WAS NOT REQUIRED TO BE FINGERPRINTED OR TO SUBMIT CERTAIN DOCUMENTATION, JUDGE’S COMMENTS ABOUT THE CHILD’S SPEAKING SPANISH REQUIRED TRANSFER TO A DIFFERENT JUDGE (SECOND DEPT))/IMMIGRATION LAW (FAMILY LAW, SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS, MOTHER’S PETITION SEEKING FINDINGS TO ALLOW HER CHILD TO APPLY FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, MOTHER WAS NOT REQUIRED TO BE FINGERPRINTED OR TO SUBMIT CERTAIN DOCUMENTATION, JUDGE’S COMMENTS ABOUT THE CHILD’S SPEAKING SPANISH REQUIRED TRANSFER TO A DIFFERENT JUDGE (SECOND DEPT))/SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS (SIJS) (FAMILY LAW, MOTHER’S PETITION SEEKING FINDINGS TO ALLOW HER CHILD TO APPLY FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, MOTHER WAS NOT REQUIRED TO BE FINGERPRINTED OR TO SUBMIT CERTAIN DOCUMENTATION, JUDGE’S COMMENTS ABOUT THE CHILD’S SPEAKING SPANISH REQUIRED TRANSFER TO A DIFFERENT JUDGE (SECOND DEPT))/JUDGES (FAMILY LAW, SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS, MOTHER’S PETITION SEEKING FINDINGS TO ALLOW HER CHILD TO APPLY FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, MOTHER WAS NOT REQUIRED TO BE FINGERPRINTED OR TO SUBMIT CERTAIN DOCUMENTATION, JUDGE’S COMMENTS ABOUT THE CHILD’S SPEAKING SPANISH REQUIRED TRANSFER TO A DIFFERENT JUDGE (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
DEFENDANT’S OUT-OF-STATE CONVICTION DID NOT REQUIRE SUMMARY DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SEAL THE RECORDS OF HIS NEW YORK CONVICTION; HOWEVER, THE OUT-OF-STATE CONVICTION MUST BE PART OF THE ANALYSIS OF THE APPROPRIATENESS OF SEALING THE NEW YORK RECORDS; SUPREME COURT GRANTED THE MOTION WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE OUT-OF-STATE CONVICTION; MATTER REMITTED FOR A HEARING (SECOND DEPT).
THE OWNER OF THE DEFECTIVE LADDER WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S INJURY ALLEGED THE LADDER WAS PURCHASED AT A PARTICULAR HOME DEPOT STORE, IN THE FACE OF PROOF THE STORE DID NOT OPEN UNTIL YEARS AFTER THE ALLEGED PURCHASE, THE OWNER OF THE LADDER ALLEGED THE LADDER WAS EITHER PURCHASED AT A DIFFERENT TIME OR AT A DIFFERENT HOME DEPOT STORE, HOME DEPOT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
The Amount of Alcohol Consumed by Defendant and the Extent of His Intoxication at the Time of the Vehicle-Accident Evinced “Wanton and Reckless” Conduct Which Supported a Punitive-Damages Award
MEDICAL RECORDS OF THE VICTIM OF SEXUAL ASSAULT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN MADE AVAILABLE TO THE PETITIONER, WHO WAS CONVICTED OF THE SEXUAL ASSAULT, PURSUANT TO PETITIONER’S FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW (FOIL) REQUEST, THE RECORDS ARE PROTECTED FROM DISCLOSURE BY THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW, THE CIVIL RIGHTS LAW AND THE PUBLIC OFFICERS LAW (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF COULD NOT IDENTIFY THE CAUSE OF HIS STAIRWAY FALL BUT HE TESTIFIED HE REACHED FOR A HANDRAIL AND THERE WAS NONE; DEFENDANTS DID NOT PRESENT ANY EVIDENCE ON THE PRESENCE OR NEED FOR A HANDRAIL; THERE CAN BE MORE THAN ONE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF A FALL; DEFENDANTS WERE NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT). ​
IN THIS LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, THE PLAINTIFF NEED NOT SHOW SHE ACTUALLY SUSTAINED DAMAGES TO SURVIVE A MOTION TO DISMISS (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO IDENTIFY “JOHN DOE” “JANE DOE” DEFENDANTS AS POLICE OFFICERS IN THIS CIVIL RIGHTS CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD EXPIRED AND THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE DOES NOT APPLY (SECOND DEPT).
Operating Agreements Created a Limited Liability Company In Which Members Did Not Share Control of the Development Project or Responsibility for Losses/No Fiduciary Duty Arises from a Limited-Liability-Company Relationship, As It Does from a Partnership or Joint Venture

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

SUPREME COURT, IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION, HAD USED CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING... COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONVERTED THE MOTION TO DISMISS TO A MOTION FOR SUMMARY...