You are here: / / THIRD CHILD SHOULD HAVE BEEN FOUND TO HAVE BEEN DERIVATIVELY NEGLECTED...

THIRD CHILD SHOULD HAVE BEEN FOUND TO HAVE BEEN DERIVATIVELY NEGLECTED BASED UPON PROOF FATHER INJURED THE TWO OTHER CHILDREN (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Family Court properly found that a child (Nasir) was not derivatively abused based upon proof father had injured the two other children, but should have found the child derivatively neglected:

​

“[P]roof of the abuse or neglect of one child shall be admissible evidence on the issue of the abuse or neglect of any other child of, or the legal responsibility of, the respondent” … . Contrary to the contention of ACS [Administration for Children’s Services), the Family Court properly found that ACS failed to establish that Nasir was derivatively abused by the father … . However, we agree with ACS that it established, by a preponderance of the evidence … , that the father derivatively neglected Nasir … . “The focus of the inquiry to determine whether derivative neglect is present is whether the evidence of abuse or neglect of one child indicates a fundamental defect in the parent’s understanding of the duties of parenthood. Such flawed notions of parental responsibility are generally reliable indicators that a parent who has abused one child will place his or her other children at substantial risk of harm” …  The father’s physical abuse of Nyair demonstrated a fundamental defect in his understanding of parental duties relating to the care of children, placing Nasir in imminent danger of impairment of his physical, mental, or emotional condition… . Accordingly, the court should have made a finding that the father derivatively neglected Nasir. Matter of Nyair J. (Vernon J.), 2017 NY Slip Op 07729, Second Dept 11-8-17

 

FAMILY LAW (NEGLECT, THIRD CHILD SHOULD HAVE BEEN FOUND TO HAVE BEEN DERIVATIVELY NEGLECTED BASED UPON PROOF FATHER INJURED THE TWO OTHER CHILDREN (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLECT (THIRD CHILD SHOULD HAVE BEEN FOUND TO HAVE BEEN DERIVATIVELY NEGLECTED BASED UPON PROOF FATHER INJURED THE TWO OTHER CHILDREN (SECOND DEPT))/DERIVATIVE NEGLECT (THIRD CHILD SHOULD HAVE BEEN FOUND TO HAVE BEEN DERIVATIVELY NEGLECTED BASED UPON PROOF FATHER INJURED THE TWO OTHER CHILDREN (SECOND DEPT))/ABUSE (FAMILY LAW, THIRD CHILD SHOULD HAVE BEEN FOUND TO HAVE BEEN DERIVATIVELY NEGLECTED BASED UPON PROOF FATHER INJURED THE TWO OTHER CHILDREN (SECOND DEPT))/DERIVATIVE ABUSE (FAMILY LAW, THIRD CHILD SHOULD HAVE BEEN FOUND TO HAVE BEEN DERIVATIVELY NEGLECTED BASED UPON PROOF FATHER INJURED THE TWO OTHER CHILDREN (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
BANK DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
AN ATTORNEY’S REFERENCE IN AN EMAIL TO A NONPARTY AS A “WIFE BEATER” WAS ABSOLUTELY PRIVILEGED AS PERTINENT TO THE DIVORCE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
ARBITRATOR, NOT THE COURTS, MUST FIRST DETERMINE WHETHER THE MATTER IS ARBITRABLE, CITY HAD ISSUED NEW PROTOCOLS FOR FIRST RESPONDERS, THE UNION FILED A GRIEVANCE ARGUING THE NEW PROTOCOLS MUST BE THE SUBJECT OF ARBITRATION, AN ARBITRATOR MUST DECIDE WHETHER THE ISSUE IS COVERED BY THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS NOT REQUIRED TO MEET THE 90-DAY-NOTICE REQUIREMENT OF RPAPL 1304 BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT HAD MOVED FROM THE RESIDENCE; HOWEVER THE BANK WAS STILL REQUIRED BY RPAPL 1304 TO PROVIDE NOTICE OF THE FORECLOSURE TO THE DEFENDANT; THE PROOF THAT NOTICE WAS MAILED WAS INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT).
Police Did Not Have Sufficient Information to Justify Request that 12-Year-Old Lift His Shirt–Weapon Recovered After Juvenile’s Refusal (and a Police Pursuit) Should Have Been Suppressed
Question of Fact Whether Out of Possession Landlord, Based on the Terms of the Lease, Had a Duty to Keep the Premises Safe (Labor Law 200)
DEFENDANT DOCTOR WAS PROPERLY ALLOWED TO TESTIFY ABOUT HIS USUAL PRACTICE OR HABIT IN PERFORMING KNEE REPLACEMENT SURGERY (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF ALLEGED A NEW THEORY OF LIABILITY FOR THE FIRST TIME IN ANSWER TO DEFENDANT DOCTOR’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION; SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION AND SHOULD NOT HAVE ALLOWED PLAINTIFF TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT AND BILL OF PARTICULARS TO REFLECT THE NEW THEORY (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

DERIVATIVE NEGLECT FINDING CANNOT BE BASED UPON A PRIOR ADJOURNMENT IN CONTEMPLATION... SUPREME COURT ERRED IN ORDERING DISCLOSURE OF SOME OF THE INSURER’S RECORDS...