green
Positive treatment
9.3 score
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Matter of Michele D. v. Jessica F.
When analyzing a pre-answer motion to dismiss under CPLR 3211, we must construe the petition liberally, "accept the facts as alleged in the petition as true, accord the petitioner the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable theory" ( Matter of Romena Q. v Edwin Q. , 133 AD3d 1148 , 1149 [3d Dept 2015] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted]; see Matter of Wayman v Ramos , 88 AD3d 1237, 1239 [3d Dept 2011], lv dismissed 18 NY3d 868 [2012]).
discussed
Cited "see"
Matter of Johnson v. Forty
First, contrary to the mother's contention, the appeal, in which the father challenges only the court's custody determination, has not been rendered moot by a subsequent order entered upon the consent of the parties inasmuch as the mother's petition prompting the subsequent order sought to modify the visitation provisions only and the transcript of the subsequent proceeding establishes that the father "consented only to that part of [the] subsequent order concerning [the modification of] his visitation rights" ( Matter of Foster v Bartlett , 59 AD3d 976 , 977 [4th Dept 2009], lv denied 12 NY3d…
discussed
Cited "see"
Liz WW. v. Shakeria XX.
However, we have stressed that, “[w]ith few exceptions, an evidentiary hearing is necessary to determine whether extraordinary circumstances exist” (Matter of Daniels v Lushia, 101 AD3d 1405, 1406 [2012]; see Matter of Wayman v Ramos, 88 AD3d 1237, 1238 [2011], lv dismissed 18 NY3d 868 [2012]).
discussed
Cited "see"
Liz WW. v. Shakeria XX.
However, we have stressed that, “[w]ith few exceptions, an evidentiary hearing is necessary to determine whether extraordinary circumstances exist” (Matter of Daniels v Lushia, 101 AD3d 1405, 1406 [2012]; see Matter of Wayman v Ramos, 88 AD3d 1237, 1238 [2011], lv dismissed 18 NY3d 868 [2012]).
discussed
Cited "see"
Carpenter v. Puglese
In this regard, “[e]vidence that the parent has failed either to maintain substantial, repeated and continuous contact with a child or to plan for the child’s future has been found to constitute persistent neglect sufficient to rise to the level of an extraordinary circumstance” (Matter of Ferguson v Skelly, 80 AD3d 903, 905 [2011], lv denied 16 NY3d 710 [2011]; accord Matter of Wayman v Ramos, 88 AD3d 1237, 1239 [2011], lv dismissed 18 NY3d 868 [2012]; see Matter of Arlene Y. v Warren County Dept. of Social Servs., 76 AD3d 720 , 721 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 713 [2010]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Lafayette D. Young, Jr., a Justice of the MacOmb Town Court, St. Lawrence County, Petitioner. State Commission on Judicial Conduct, Respondent
Motion No: 2011-1325.
New York Court of Appeals.
Jan 5, 2012.
Published
Motion to waive strict compliance with certain requirements concerning the record on review herein granted to the extent that consideration of the determination of the Commission on Judicial Conduct may be prosecuted upon 10 copies of the record on review.