In re Najad D., 99 A.D.3d 707 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2012). · Go Syfert
Search
In re Najad D., 99 A.D.3d 707 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2012). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
25 citation events (25 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Matter of Evan T. (Shaquela T.), 155 A.D.3d 964 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2017)
Treatment trajectory · 2012 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2012 2019 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
q1 “since an adjudication of neglect and/or derivative neglect constitutes 'a permanent and significant stigma which might indirectly affect the appellant's status in future proceedings”6 citing cases6 citing courts quote it · 3 listed here
  • In re Eunice D., 111 A.D.3d 627 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2013).published 2 cites
    Here, the Family Court’s findings of fact are supported by a preponderance of the credible evidence (see Matter of Najad D. [Kiswana M.], 99 AD3d at 708; Matter of Iouke H. [Terrence H.], 94 AD3d 889, 891 [2012]; Matter of James S. [Kathle…
  • In re Shamika K.L.N., 101 A.D.3d 729 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2012).published
  • In re Mia P.R.D., 113 A.D.3d 679 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2014).published
At page 708 Supporting findings of fact by preponderance of evidence5 citing cases3 listed here
  • Matter of Evan T. (Shaquela T.), 155 A.D.3d 964 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2017).published
    Accordingly, review is limited to the Family Court’s finding of neglect (see Matter of Jemima M. [Aura M.], 151 AD3d at 863 ; Matter of Najad D. [Kiswana M.], 99 AD3d at 708).
  • In re Eunice D., 111 A.D.3d 627 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2013).published 2 cites
    Here, the Family Court’s findings of fact are supported by a preponderance of the credible evidence (see Matter of Najad D. [Kiswana M.], 99 AD3d at 708; Matter of Iouke H. [Terrence H.], 94 AD3d 889, 891 [2012]; Matter of James S. [Kathle…
  • In re Alexandria M., 108 A.D.3d 548 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2013).published 2 cites
    Generally, this would not preclude review of the fact-finding order (see Matter of Najad D. [Kiswana M.], 99 AD3d at 708; Matter of Niviya K. [Alfonzo M.], 89 AD3d at 1027 ; Matter of Nyia L., 88 AD3d at 882 ; Matter of Emanuel Q., 73 AD3d…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Najad D., an Infant. Administration for Children's Services, Respondent Kiswana M., (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Najaf D., an Infant. Administration for Children's Services, Respondent Kiswana M., (Proceeding No. 2.) In the Matter of Nadra Shawnna D., an Infant. Administration for Children's Services, Respondent Kiswana M., (Proceeding No. 3.)
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Oct 3, 2012.
Published opinion
99 A.D.3d 707
Published

The appeal from so much of the order of disposition as placed the subject children with the Commissioner of Social Services of Kings County until the next permanency hearing to be held on November 23, 2010, must be dismissed as academic, as the period of placement has already expired (see Matter of Ifeiye O., 53 AD3d 501 [2008]). In addition, during the pendency of this appeal, the subject children were returned to the appellant mother. Nevertheless, the neglect findings against the appellant are not academic, since an adjudication of neglect and/or derivative neglect constitutes “a permanent and significant stigma which might indirectly affect the appellant’s status in future proceedings” (id. at 501-502; see Matter of Amber C., 38 AD3d 538, 539-540 [2007]). We conclude that the Family Court’s findings of fact are supported by a preponderance of the credible evidence (see Matter of Iouke H. [Terrence H.], 94 AD3d 889, 891 [2012]; Matter of James S. [Kathleen S.], 88 AD3d 1006, 1007 [2011]; Matter of Javon T., 64 AD3d 608, 608-609 [2009]; Family Ct Act § 1046 [b] [i]).

The parties’ remaining contentions are without merit, academic, or not properly before this Court. Dillon, J.E, Dickerson, Austin and Miller, JJ., concur.