You are here: / / Under the Unique Circumstances of this Case, the Neglect Adjudication Should...

Under the Unique Circumstances of this Case, the Neglect Adjudication Should Have Been Vacated Upon Compliance with the Conditions of the Suspended Judgment

The Second Department determined, under the unique circumstances of this case, Family Court should have vacated its neglect adjudication after the parent complied with the conditions of the suspended judgment. The neglect was apparently based upon lead levels:

Although facts sufficient to sustain the petitions were established, neglect petitions may nevertheless be dismissed if “the court concludes that its aid is not required on the record before it” (Family Ct Act § 1051[c]). Under the discrete circumstances of this case, the Family Court properly directed dismissal of the petitions after the expiration of the six-month suspended judgment period, as the aid of the court was no longer required. However, the court should have also exercised its discretion by directing that, upon the dismissal of the petitions, the adjudication of neglect shall be vacated (see Family Ct Act § 1061). As a general rule, a parent’s compliance with the terms and conditions of a suspended judgment does not eradicate the prior neglect finding (see Merril Sobie, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 29A, Family Ct Act § 1053 at 57). Here, however, there are a number of factors warranting the vacatur of the neglect findings. The parents’ underlying conduct was aberrational in nature, the lead condition at the family home has been abated, the children’s blood lead levels after the six-month suspended judgment period were within acceptable ranges, the parents fully complied with the conditions of the suspended judgment, there is no risk that the circumstances of lead exposure will recur, and there is no likelihood that these circumstances will warrant further judicial proceedings (see Family Ct Act § 1051[c]…). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have directed that, upon the dismissal of the petitions, the adjudication of neglect shall be vacated. Matter of Anoushka G. (Cyntra M.), 2015 NY Slip Op 07658, 2nd Dept 10-21-15

 

You might also like
Mistrial Declaration Over Defendant’s Objection Was “Manifestly Necessary”—Double Jeopardy Prohibition Not Triggered
ABSENT “EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES,” A JUDGE DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO, SUA SPONTE, DISMISS A COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT). ​
DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNERS BORROWED A LIFT FROM DEFENDANT MIS, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED USING THE LIFT, THE LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST MIS WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED AS INAPPLICABLE, BUT THE NEGLIGENCE ACTION AGAINST MIS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
THE POLICE TESTIMONY AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING WAS NOT WORTHY OF BELIEF; THEREFORE THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE LEGALITY OF THE POLICE CONDUCT; INDICTMENT DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
THE FIVE-YEAR DELAY BETWEEN PLAINTIFF-DECEDENT’S DEATH AND THE MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE AN ADMINISTRATOR DID NOT WARRANT DISMISSAL OF THE ACTION; DECEDENT HAD BEEN AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LIABILITY IN THIS TRAFFIC-ACCIDENT CASE (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF BANK’S PRIOR FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE STANDING; RES JUDICATA DOES NOT PRECLUDE THE INSTANT FORECLOSURE ACTION BECAUSE THE PRIOR ACTION WAS NOT DISMISSED ON THE MERITS; COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOES NOT PRECLUDE THE INSTANT ACTION BECAUSE THE STANDING ISSUE IS NOT THE SAME (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT HAD STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
Answer Submitted Pro Se by Corporation Is a Nullity

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Proof of Janitorial Schedule Insufficient to Demonstrate Lack of Notice of Dangerous... Patient Held In a Mental Health Facility After the Court Order Authorizing Confinement...