You are here: / / EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT TEMPORARY REMOVAL OF CHILD FROM FATHER’S...
,

EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT TEMPORARY REMOVAL OF CHILD FROM FATHER’S CUSTODY DURING THE PENDENCY OF A CHILD PROTECTIVE PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the evidence did not support temporary removal of the child from father’s custody during the pendency of a child protective proceeding:

“[O]nce a child protective petition has been filed, Family Court Act § 1027(a)(iii) authorizes the court to conduct a hearing to determine whether the child’s interests require protection, including whether the child should be removed from his or her parent”… . Upon such a hearing, temporary removal is only authorized where the court finds it necessary “to avoid imminent risk to the child’s life or health” … . “In determining a removal application pursuant to Family Court Act § 1027, the court must engage in a balancing test of the imminent risk with the best interests of the child and, where appropriate, the reasonable efforts made to avoid removal or continuing removal'” … .

Here, the petitioner failed to establish that Chloe would be subject to imminent risk if she remained in the father’s care pending the outcome of the neglect proceeding … . The hearing evidence showed that at no time did the father inflict excessive corporal punishment upon Chloe. In addition, the evidence showed that Dasanie may have been coached by Chloe’s mother, and Dasanie recanted, before several individuals, the allegations that the father inflicted excessive corporal punishment upon her. Matter of Chloe-Elizabeth A.T. (Albert T.), 2018 NY Slip Op 08666, Second Dept 12-19-18

 

You might also like
​ THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED AN ORAL JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENT BUT DID NOT ALLEGE THE PARTIES AGREED TO SHARE THE LOSSES; THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS THEREFORE APPLIED AND THE COMPLAINT WAS DISMISSED; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO ALLEGE THE PARTIES AGREED TO SHARE THE LOSSES SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
PETITIONER WAS 14 IN 1990 WHEN HE MURDERED A CLASSMATE AND THE CHILD SHE WAS BABYSITTING, THE PAROLE BOARD PROPERLY DENIED PAROLE FOR THE FIFTH TIME, THE RECORD DEMONSTRATES THE BOARD CONSIDERED ALL THE RELEVANT FACTORS AND DID NOT BASE THEIR DECISION SOLELY ON THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE OFFENSE (SECOND DEPT).
THE PLAINTIFF DID NOT KNOW THE CAUSE OF HER STAIRCASE FALL AND DID NOT TIE THE FALL TO THE ABSENCE OF A SECOND HANDRAIL; THERE WAS NO STATUTE OR CODE PROVISION, AND NO COMMON LAW DUTY, REQUIRING TWO HANDRAILS; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Insufficient Proof of Value in Grand Larceny Case.
HERE IT WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED THAT THE JUDGE LAID OUT THE SPECIFIC CONDUCT DEMONSTRATING A NEGLECT TO PROSECUTE AND IT WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED THE PLAINTIFF WAS AFFORDED NOTICE AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD IN OPPOSITION TO DISMISSAL FOR NEGLECT TO PROSECUTE (SECOND DEPT).
THE COMPLAINT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED FACTS THAT WOULD SUPPORT PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL (SECOND DEPT).
COUNSELING OR TREATMENT SHOULD NOT BE MADE A CONDITION FOR ANY FUTURE MODIFICATION OF PARENTAL ACCESS; HOWEVER COUNSELING AND TREATMENT MAY BE MADE A COMPONENT OF CURRENT PARENTAL ACCESS (SECOND DEPT).
SURROGATE’S COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED THE PETITION FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF A GUARDIAN TO MANAGE THE AFFAIRS OF A SEVERELY DISABLED PERSON, THE SURROGATE’S COURT PROCEDURE ACT AUTHORIZES THE APPOINTMENT, SURROGATE’S COURT ERRED BY FINDING THE PETITION SHOULD BE BROUGHT UNDER THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW (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

BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF REAL PROPERTY... CROSS-MOTION TO EXTEND THE TIME FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS PURSUANT TO CPLR 306-b...