green
Positive treatment
Trending · 125 recent citers
Quoted verbatim 1×
13.3 score
“it is significant that no affidavit from trial counsel was submitted in connection with motion for a new trial”
Treatment trajectory · 2003 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2003
2014
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 27 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Commonwealth v. Alvarez
it is significant that no affidavit from trial counsel was submitted in connection with motion for a new trial
discussed
Cited "see"
Matter of Gabriel H.
We conclude that the court properly determined that the son is an abused child "inasmuch as the abuse of [the daughter] 'is so closely connected with the [*3]care of [the son] as to indicate that [the son] is equally at risk' " ( Matter of Alyssa C.M. , 17 AD3d 1023, 1024 [4th Dept 2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 706 [2005]; see Matter of Markeith G. [Deon W.] , 152 AD3d 424, 425 [1st Dept 2017]; see generally Matter of Marino S. , 100 NY2d 361, 374 [2003], cert denied 540 US 1059 [2003]).
cited
Cited "see"
Matter of Ariana F.F. (Robert E.F.)
The court also properly found that respondents derivatively severely abused Serenity ( see id. ; see generally Matter of Marino S. , 100 NY2d 361, 374 [2003], cert denied 540 US 1059 [2003]).
discussed
Cited "see"
Matter of Carl B. (Crystale L.)
Even assuming, arguendo, that the court erred in admitting the documents in evidence, we conclude that "[a]ny error in the admission of [those documents] is harmless because the result reached herein would have been the same even had such [documents] been excluded" ( Matter of Tyler W. [Stacey S.] , 121 AD3d 1572 , 1572-1573 [4th Dept 2014] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Marino S ., 100 NY2d 361, 372 [2003], cert denied 540 US 1059 [2003]; Matter of Kyla E. [Stephanie F.] , 126 AD3d 1385 , 1386 [4th Dept 2015], lv denied 25 NY3d 910 [2015]).
discussed
Cited "see"
In re Ashlyn Q.
Further, we decline to disturb Supreme Court’s finding that the fiancé derivatively abused and neglected Yuri, inasmuch as his conduct and lack of accountability therefor “demonstrates such an impaired level of parental judgment as to create a substantial risk of harm for any child in [his] care” (Matter of Loraida R. [Lori S.], 97 AD3d 925 , 927 [2012] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted]; see Matter of Marino S., 100 NY2d 361, 374 [2003], cert denied 540 US 1059 [2003]).
discussed
Cited "see"
In re Ashlyn Q.
Further, we decline to disturb Supreme Court’s finding that the fiancé derivatively abused and neglected Yuri, inasmuch as his conduct and lack of accountability therefor “demonstrates such an impaired level of parental judgment as to create a substantial risk of harm for any child in [his] care” (Matter of Loraida R. [Lori S.], 97 AD3d 925 , 927 [2012] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted]; see Matter of Marino S., 100 NY2d 361, 374 [2003], cert denied 540 US 1059 [2003]).
cited
Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Ware
See Commonwealth v. Lynch, 439 Mass. 532, 545 , cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1059 (2003); Martinez, supra at 97-98 .
discussed
Cited "see"
In re Kyla E.
Although the mother correctly contends that Family Court erred in admitting hearsay testimony from one of petitioner’s witnesses (see Family Ct Act § 624; Matter of Nicholas C. [Erika H. —Robert C.], 105 AD3d 1402 , 1402 [2013]; see generally Matter of Leon RR, 48 NY2d 117, 121 [1979]), we nevertheless conclude that “[a]ny error in the admission of [those] statement [s] is harmless because the result reached herein would have been the same even had such [statements] been excluded” (Matter of Tyler W. [Stacey S.], 121 AD3d 1572 , 1572-1573 [2014] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see…
discussed
Cited "see"
E., KYLA, MTR. OF
Although the mother correctly contends that Family Court erred in admitting hearsay testimony from one of petitioner’s witnesses (see Family Ct Act § 624; Matter of Nicholas C. [Erika H.—Robert C.], 105 AD3d 1402 , 1402; see generally Matter of Leon RR, 48 NY2d 117, 121 ), we nevertheless conclude that “[a]ny error in the admission of [those] statement[s] is harmless because the result reached herein would have been the same even had such [statements] been excluded” (Matter of Tyler W. [Stacey S.], 121 AD3d 1572 , 1572-1573 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Marino S., …
discussed
Cited "see"
In re Kyla E.
Although the mother correctly contends that Family Court erred in admitting hearsay testimony from one of petitioner’s witnesses (see Family Ct Act § 624; Matter of Nicholas C. [Erika H. —Robert C.], 105 AD3d 1402 , 1402 [2013]; see generally Matter of Leon RR, 48 NY2d 117, 121 [1979]), we nevertheless conclude that “[a]ny error in the admission of [those] statement [s] is harmless because the result reached herein would have been the same even had such [statements] been excluded” (Matter of Tyler W. [Stacey S.], 121 AD3d 1572 , 1572-1573 [2014] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see…
discussed
Cited "see"
In re Loraida R.
In addition, because the evidence of respondent’s sexual abuse and neglect of her daughter “demonstrate^] such an impaired level of parental judgment as to create a substantial risk of harm for any child in [her] care,” we find no basis upon which to disturb the court’s determination that she derivatively abused and neglected her son (Matter of Branden P. [Corey P.], 90 AD3d 1186, 1189 [2011] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Matter of Marino S., 100 NY2d 361, 374-375 [2003], cert denied 540 US 1059 [2003]).
discussed
Cited "see"
In re Loraida R.
In addition, because the evidence of respondent’s sexual abuse and neglect of her daughter “demonstrate^] such an impaired level of parental judgment as to create a substantial risk of harm for any child in [her] care,” we find no basis upon which to disturb the court’s determination that she derivatively abused and neglected her son (Matter of Branden P. [Corey P.], 90 AD3d 1186, 1189 [2011] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Matter of Marino S., 100 NY2d 361, 374-375 [2003], cert denied 540 US 1059 [2003]).
discussed
Cited "see"
In re Dakota Y.
In opposition to the motion, respondent failed to establish that requiring petitioner to continue to make reasonable efforts would be in the child’s best interests, “ ‘not contrary to the health and safety of the child, and would likely result in the reunification of [respondent] and the child in the foreseeable future’ ” (Matter of Sasha M., 43 AD3d 1401, 1402 [2007], quoting Family Ct Act § 1039-b [b]; see Matter of Marino S., 100 NY2d 361, 372 [2003], cert denied sub nom., Marino S. v Angel Guardian Children & Family Servs., Inc., 540 US 1059 [2003]).
discussed
Cited "see"
In re Dakota Y.
In opposition to the motion, respondent failed to establish that requiring petitioner to continue to make reasonable efforts would be in the child’s best interests, “ ‘not contrary to the health and safety of the child, and would likely result in the reunification of [respondent] and the child in the foreseeable future’ ” (Matter of Sasha M., 43 AD3d 1401, 1402 [2007], quoting Family Ct Act § 1039-b [b]; see Matter of Marino S., 100 NY2d 361, 372 [2003], cert denied sub nom., Marino S. v Angel Guardian Children & Family Servs., Inc., 540 US 1059 [2003]).
discussed
Cited "see"
In re Liliana G.
Pursuant to Family Court Act § 1039-b (b), where the parent’s parental rights with respect to siblings of the subject child have been involuntarily terminated, the petitioner is not required to use reasonable efforts to reunite the parent and child “unless the court determines that providing reasonable efforts would be in the best interests of the child, not contrary to the health and safety of the child, and would likely result in the reunification of the parent and the child in the foreseeable future.” Further, “[a]lthough the statute does not specifically direct that an evidentiary…
discussed
Cited "see"
G., LILIANA, MTR. OF
Pursuant to Family Court Act § 1039-b (b), where the parent’s parental rights with respect to siblings of the subject child have been involuntarily terminated, the petitioner is not required to use reasonable efforts to reunite the parent and child “unless the court determines that providing reasonable efforts would be in the best interests of the child, not contrary to the health and safety of the child, and would likely result in the reunification of the parent and the child in the foreseeable future.” Further, “[a]lthough the statute does not specifically direct that an evidentiary…
cited
Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Toolan
See Commonwealth v. Lynch, 439 Mass. 532, 544 , cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1059 (2003).
discussed
Cited "see"
In re Sephaniah A.
The finding that respondent derivatively abused her son was supported by a preponderance of the evidence, including her failure to provide a reasonable explanation for injuries to her other children which led to prior findings of neglect and abuse (Family Ct Act § 1046 [a] [i]; see Matter of Marino S., 100 NY2d 361, 374 [2003], cert denied 540 US 1059 [2003]).
discussed
Cited "see"
In re Sasha M.
In response to that showing, respondent failed to establish that requiring petitioner to make reasonable efforts to reunite Sasha with her “would be in the best interests of the child, not contrary to the health and safety of the child, and would likely result in the reunification of [respondent] and the child in the foreseeable future” (§ 1039-b [b]; see also Matter of June S., 183 Misc 2d 679, 682 [2000]; see generally Matter of Marino S., 100 NY2d 361, 372-373 [2003], cert denied 540 US 1059 [2003]).
cited
Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Caillot
See Commonwealth v. Lynch, 439 Mass. 532, 538 , cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1059 (2003).
cited
Cited "see"
Lynch v. Ficco
See Commonwealth v. Lynch, 439 Mass. 532 , 789 N.E.2d 1052, 1062 (2003), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1059 , 124 S.Ct. 833 , 157 L.Ed.2d 715 (2003).
cited
Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Anderson
See Commonwealth v. Lynch, 439 Mass. 532, 539 , cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1059 (2003).
discussed
Cited "see"
In re Jeffrey M.
Contrary to respondent’s further contention, the court, consistent with the goal of expedited permanency planning under the Adoption and Safe Families Act, properly made immediate findings of neglect and due diligence (see L 1999, ch 7; see generally Matter of Marino S., 293 AD2d 223, 227 [2002], affd 100 NY2d 361 [2003], cert denied — US — 124 S Ct 834 [2003]).
discussed
Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Ortega
See Commonwealth v. Lynch, 439 Mass. 532, 537 , cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1059 (2003); Commonwealth v. Amirault, 424 Mass. 618 , 645 n.19 (1997) (defendant bound by counsel’s tactical decisions); Commonwealth v. Florentino, 396 Mass. 689, 690 (1986) (judicial scrutiny of counsel’s performance “highly deferential”). a.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Commonwealth v. Ridley
See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Lynch, 439 Mass. 532, 543-544 , cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1059 (2003) (judge provided two correct instructions and two incorrect instructions, but "repeatedly emphasized that the Commonwealth bears the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt on all the elements of the crime charged"); Fickling, supra at 19-20 (two correct instructions sandwiched between two incorrect instructions, but it was clear that correct instructions carried more weight).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Matter of Isaac Ansimeon F. (Mark P.)
The Family Court properly excused the agency from its duty to make diligent efforts to reunite the father and child, as such efforts would be detrimental to the best interests of the child given that the father’s earliest possible release date from prison is 2019, when the child will be 20 years old (see § 384-b [7] [a]; see also Matter of Marino S., 100 NY2d 361, 372 [2003], cert denied 540 US 1059 [2003]).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Commonwealth v. Glacken
See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Lynch, 439 Mass. 532, 543-544 , cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1059 (2003) (erroneous instruction, read in context of otherwise correct charge, would not have been misunderstood by jurors); Commonwealth v. Niemic, supra at 721-722 (same); Commonwealth v. Torres, 420 Mass. at 490-491 (same).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Marino S.
v.
Angel Guardian Children & Family Services, Inc.
v.
Angel Guardian Children & Family Services, Inc.
03-6727.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Dec 1, 2003.
Cited by 2 opinions | Published
Citer courts: Massachusetts Appeals Court (1)
MARINO S.
v.
ANGEL GUARDIAN CHILDREN & FAMILY SERVICES, INC., ET AL.
No. 03-6727.
Supreme Court of United States.
December 1, 2003.
1
Appeal from the Ct. App. N.Y.
2
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 100 N. Y. 2d 361, 795 N. E. 2d 21.