You are here: / / GRANDMOTHER, BASED UPON HER PAST CARE OF THE CHILDREN, WAS THE FUNCTIONAL...

GRANDMOTHER, BASED UPON HER PAST CARE OF THE CHILDREN, WAS THE FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT OF A PARENT WHO HAD STANDING TO APPLY FOR A HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE CHILDREN SHOULD BE RETURNED TO HER, FAMILY COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined grandmother’s application for a hearing to determine whether the children should be returned to her should have been granted. The children were removed from grandmother’s care and placed in a foster home. Grandmother’s application for a hearing was denied on the ground she did not have standing. But the Second Department held that grandmother met the definition of a person legally responsible for the care of the children based upon the level of care she had provided when the children were placed with her:

Family Court Act § 1028(a) provides that “[u]pon the application of the parent or other person legally responsible for the care of a child temporarily removed under this part . . . the court shall hold a hearing to determine whether the child should be returned,” with two exceptions not relevant here … . …

… [T]he evidence submitted in support of the paternal grandmother’s application is sufficient to support a determination that she is a person legally responsible for the care of the children. The evidence demonstrated that the children lived with the paternal grandmother for months at a time, during which time she purchased food and clothes for the children, did their laundry, fed them, brought them to and from school, church, and extracurricular activities, acted as the contact person for the school in case the children were ill or injured, and attended medical appointments with them. These actions, parental in nature and over an extended period of time, support a determination that the paternal grandmother was the functional equivalent of a parent to the children … . Thus, the paternal grandmother was entitled to a hearing pursuant to Family Court Act § 1028, and the Family Court’s denial of her application deprived the paternal grandmother of her due process rights … . Matter of Kavon A. (Kavon A.–Monetta A.), 2021 NY Slip Op 01972, Second Dept 3-31-21

 

You might also like
The Defendants, Lessees of the Property Abutting the Sidewalk, Demonstrated in their Summary Judgment Motion that there Was No Statute or Ordinance Imposing Liability on Lessees for Failure to Clear Snow and Ice from the Sidewalk, But the Defendants Did Not Affirmatively Demonstrate They Did Not Make the Condition More Hazardous by their Snow Removal Efforts—Therefore the Summary Judgment Motion Must Be Denied Without Reference to the Answering Papers
REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) 1501 WAS THE PROPER BASIS FOR THE ACTION SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE DEED AND MORTGAGES WHICH WERE THE BASES FOR THE BANK’S JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE.
TRIAL JUDGE GAVE THE WRONG JURY INSTRUCTION CONCERNING THE LIABILITY OF AN INSURANCE COMPANY FOR DAMAGE WHEN THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT THE CAUSE OF THE DAMAGE COULD EITHER BE A CAUSE COVERED BY THE POLICY OR A CAUSE NOT COVERED BY THE POLICY, THE OVER $1.8 MILLION VERDICT REVERSED AND NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT NOT GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN HIS REQUEST TO WITHDRAW HIS GUILTY PLEA, DEFENSE COUNSEL INDICATED THERE WAS NO REASON FOR THE WITHDRAWAL, MATTER REMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE REQUEST WITH NEW COUNSEL (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE; DEFENDANT DRIVER IS EXPECTED TO SEE WHAT SHOULD BE SEEN; WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS CONTRIBUTORILY NEGLIGENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE MAILING REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 OR THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1303 (SECOND DEPT).
MOTHER FAILED TO APPEAR IN THE PROCEEDING TO DETERMINE FATHER’S PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY; THE PETITION WAS GRANTED; BUT NO EVIDENCE WAS PRESENTED ON WHETHER MODIFICATION WAS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILDREN; MOTHER’S MOTION TO VACATE THE ORDER GRANTING FATHER’S PETITION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF PREVAILED IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION; HOWEVER, ABSENT A CONTRACT PROVISION, OR A STATUTE OR COURT RULE ALLOWING THE AWARD, PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES (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

A WARNING LETTER ISSUED TO THE NYC MAYOR BY THE NYC CONFLICTS OF INTEREST BOARD... THE FINDING THAT THE COMPLAINANT CONSENTED TO LYING DOWN IN BED WITH PETITIONER...