You are here: / / FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE ISSUED AN ORDER MAKING FINDINGS TO ALLOW THE CHILDREN...
,

FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE ISSUED AN ORDER MAKING FINDINGS TO ALLOW THE CHILDREN TO PETITION FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS, IT WAS NOT IN THE CHILDREN’S BEST INTERESTS TO RETURN TO HONDURAS (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the court should have issued an order making findings to allow the child to petition for Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS):

… [B]ased upon our independent factual review, the record supports a finding that reunification of the children with their mother is not viable due to parental abandonment … . The children testified that the mother left when they were both only three years old, and that they have not seen or spoken to the mother since that time. Thus, the record establishes that the mother has had no involvement with the children for the majority of their lives … .

Further, the record supports a finding that it would not be in the best interests of the children to return to Honduras, their previous country of nationality or country of last habitual residence … . Francis testified that when the children lived with their paternal aunt in Honduras, they were “mistreat[ed] . . . emotionally and physically.” The children testified that when they then went to live with their father and stepmother in Honduras, the stepmother beat them and “wouldn’t give us food” when the father was not around, and that the stepmother was “verbally abusive,” telling the children, among other things, that they were “good for nothing.” The record reflects that the children had no one else to take care of them if they returned to Honduras. Consequently, the record demonstrates that it would not be in the best interests of the children to return to Honduras … . Matter of Norma U. v Herman T. R.F., 2019 NY Slip Op 01421, Second Dept 2-27-19

 

You might also like
Motion to Set Aside Verdict Properly Denied—The Jury Determined Defendant’s Negligence Was Not the Proximate Cause of the Accident—Analytical Criteria Explained
“BEACH 12,” A NONPARTY WHICH BECAME TITLE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AFTER PLAINTIFF FILED THE NOTICE OF PENDENCY, WAS ENTITLED TO INTERVENE IN THE FORECLOSURE ACTION AS OF RIGHT; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUFFER A “SERIOUS INJURY” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE INSURANCE LAW IN THE UNDERLYING PEDESTRIAN-VEHICLE ACCIDENT CASE; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF COULD NOT HAVE SUCCEEDED ON THE MERITS OF THAT ACTION; DEFENDANT ATTORNEY WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE INSTANT LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
IF THE ORIGINAL PROCESS SERVER’S AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE FAILS TO INCLUDE A STATEMENT THAT A MAILING IN COMPLIANCE WITH CPLR 308(2) WAS DONE, THE OMISSION CANNOT BE CURED BY AMENDMENT; THE AMENDED AFFIDAVIT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE COURT (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT PULLED OUT IN FRONT OF PLAINTIFF, PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE COMPLAINT IN THIS LABOR LAW 200 ACTION ALLEGED INJURY CAUSED BY A DANGEROUS CONDITION AT THE WORK SITE; THE DEFENDANTS IGNORED THAT THEORY IN THEIR MOTION FOR A SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND FOCUSED ON AN INAPPLICABLE THEORY (THE MEANS AND MANNER OF WORK); THE MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER STOCKING SHELVES WAS PART OF A LARGER RENOVATION PROJECT AND THEREFORE A COVERED ACTIVITY UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) (SECOND DEPT).
THE PETITIONER MAKING THE FOIL REQUEST IS A LAW FIRM; THE FACT THAT THE FIRM’S CLIENT ALSO HAD STANDING TO MAKE THE FOIL REQUEST DID NOT DEPRIVE THE LAW FIRM OF STANDING (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE AUTHORITY TO SUA SPONTE VACATE A CONSENT ORDER IN... DENIAL OF YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION (SECOND DEPT)...