You are here: / / FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE THE POWER TO ORDER THE FINGERPRINTING OF PETITIONER...

FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE THE POWER TO ORDER THE FINGERPRINTING OF PETITIONER IN A GUARDIANSHIP PROCEEDING.

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the guardianship petition should not have been denied solely because the petitioner did not comply with the order requiring the fingerprinting of petitioner as part of a criminal background check. Family Court did not have the authority to require fingerprinting:

Contrary to the Family Court’s determination, there is no express statutory fingerprinting requirement in a proceeding such as this pursuant to Family Court Act § 661(a) for “[g]uardianship of the person of a minor or infant” … . Consequently, it was improper for the Family Court to dismiss the petition based solely on the petitioner’s failure to comply with a directive to obtain fingerprinting… . Matter of Silvia N. P. L. v Jorge M. N. P., 2016 NY Slip Op 05567, 2nd Dept 7-20-16

 

FAMILY LAW (FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE THE POWER TO ORDER THE FINGERPRINTING OF PETITIONER IN A GUARDIANSHIP PROCEEDING)/GUARDIANSHIP (FAMILY LAW, FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE THE POWER TO ORDER THE FINGERPRINTING OF PETITIONER IN A GUARDIANSHIP PROCEEDING)/FINGERPRINTING (FAMILY LAW, FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE THE POWER TO ORDER THE FINGERPRINTING OF PETITIONER IN A GUARDIANSHIP PROCEEDING)

You might also like
SUPREME COURT LACKED TO POWER TO SUPPRESS DEFENDANT’S PRESENTENCE REPORT IN IMMIGRATION PROCEEDINGS (SECOND DEPT).
Distinction Between New York College Funds, Which Are Protected Against Creditors, and College Funds Established in Other States, Which Are Not Protected, Does Not Violate the Equal Protection Clause
PLAINTIFF NURSING HOME CAN BRING A PLENARY ACTION TO DETERMINE A RESIDENT’S MEDICAID ELIGIBILITY WITHOUT BEING BOUND BY THE RESIDENT’S FAILURE TO REQUEST AN ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OR THE FOUR-MONTH STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (SECOND DEPT).
THE STOP OF THE TAXI IN WHICH DEFENDANT WAS A PASSENGER WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE DEFENDANT HAD COMMITTED A CRIME; BECAUSE DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY TO ALL OFFENSES BASED UPON A PROMISE OF CONCURRENT SENTENCES, ALL CONVICTIONS REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
THE PLAINTIFF IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE INTEREST CALCULATION WAS DONE USING THE METHOD REQUIRED BY THE NOTE AND THE RELEVANT BUSINESS RECORDS WERE NOT SUBMITTED; THE REFEREE’S REPORT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED (SECOND DEPT).
​ THE EXISTENCE OF A WRITTEN CONSULTING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES RELATING TO SALES AND MARKETING DID NOT, PURSUANT TO THE PAROL EVIDENCE RULE, PRECLUDE EVIDENCE OF AN ALLEGED ORAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE SAME PARTIES RELATING TO THE FORMATION AND OWNERSHIP OF A BUSINESS (SECOND DEPT). ​
BANK DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE AND THEREFORE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION, BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
IN 2017 PLAINTIFF MISSED A COURT-ORDERED DEADLINE FOR FILING A NOTE OF ISSUE; IN 2022 PLAINTIFF MADE A MOTION TO RESTORE THE ACTION TO THE ACTIVE CALENDAR; THE MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, RESTORATION IS AUTOMATIC UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES HERE (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

CLAIM FOR A DE FACTO TAKING ACCRUES WHEN THE TAKING IS FIRST APPARENT, NOT WHEN... WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE REVIEW RESULTED IN REVERSAL IN THIS JUVENILE DELINQUENCY...