Matter of Baby Girl Z. (Yaroslava Z.), 140 A.D.3d 893 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016). · Go Syfert
Search
Matter of Baby Girl Z. (Yaroslava Z.), 140 A.D.3d 893 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 9× by 8 distinct cases, 2016–2026 · …a party claiming court bias must preserve an objection and move for the court to recuse itself at p. 894 ✓ Topic ↗
37 citation events (37 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Treatment trajectory · 2016 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2016 2021 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 14 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Julien v. Arthur
N.Y. App. Div. · 2026 · confidence medium
"A party claiming court bias must preserve an objection and move for the court to recuse itself" ( Matter of Baby Girl Z. [Yaroslava Z.] , 140 AD3d 893, 894; see Matter of George A.C. [Anthony C.] , 223 AD3d 798, 800).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) G.K. v. S.T.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2026 · confidence medium
In any event, the record demonstrates that the court listened to the testimony, made appropriate rulings, treated the parties with respect, and did not have a predetermined outcome of the case in mind during the trial ( see Matter of Baby Girl Z. [Yaroslava Z.] , 140 AD3d 893, 894 [2d Dept 2016]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Anthony J. (Siobvan M.)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2024 · confidence medium
Initially, we note that the mother's contention is unpreserved for our review inasmuch as the mother did not make a motion for the Family Court Judge to recuse herself ( see Matter of Baby Girl Z. [Yaroslava Z.] , 140 AD3d 893, 894 [2d Dept 2016]; see generally Matter of Melish v Rinne , 221 AD3d 1560 , 1561 [4th Dept 2023]; Matter of Tartaglia v Tartaglia , 188 AD3d 1754, 1756 [4th Dept 2020]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Athena Y. (Ashleigh Z.)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2021 · confidence medium
Hearings have routinely been required in the context of overriding parents' medical decisions for their children; for example, courts have held hearings to address failure to vaccinate a child under the former religious exemption to vaccine mandates ( see Matter of Baby Girl Z. [Yaroslava Z.] , 140 AD3d 893, 894 [2016]; Matter of Isaac J. [Joyce J.] , 75 AD3d 506 , 506-507 [2010]; Matter of Nassau County Dept. of Social Servs. v R.B. , 23 Misc 3d 270, 277 [Fam Ct, Nassau County 2008]; but see Matter of Freedom R. [Jamila W.] , 142 AD3d 922, 922 [2016]), and to administer psychotropic medicatio…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Skarlith G. v. Guelvis J.C.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2020 · confidence medium
The record shows that the court listened to the testimony, treated the parties fairly, and did not have a predetermined outcome in mind during the hearing ( see Matter of Bowe , 124 AD3d at 646 ; Matter of Baby Girl Z. [Yaroslava Z.] , 140 AD3d 893, 894 [2d Dept 2016]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Greene v. Rachlin
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
The plaintiffs’ claim that the Supreme Court was biased against them is unpreserved for appellate review, as they did not move for the court to recuse itself (see Matter of Baby Girl Z. [Yaroslava Z.], 140 AD3d 893, 894 [2016]; Matter of Bowe v Bowe, 124 AD3d 645, 646 [2015])- In any event, their contention is without merit (see Matter of Davis v Pignataro, 97 AD3d 677, 678 [2012]; Matter of Serkez v Serkez, 34 AD3d 592, 592 [2006]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Dawn M. (Michael M.)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
Finally, our review of the record does not indicate any bias by Family Court toward the mother such that remittal must be before a new judge (compare Matter of Baby Girl Z. [Yaroslava Z.], 140 AD3d 893, 894 [2016]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Shonyo v. Shonyo
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
As an initial matter, the father’s contention that reversal of the order is warranted on the ground that the court was biased against him is unpreserved for our review because he failed to make a motion asking the court to recuse itself (see Matter of Curry v Reese, 145 AD3d 1475, 1476 [2016]; Matter of Baby Girl Z. [Yaroslava Z.], 140 AD3d 893, 894 [2016]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) CURRY, TORRENCE P. v. REESE, LATOYA D.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
“A party claiming court bias must preserve an objection and move for the court to recuse itself” (Matter of Baby Girl Z. [Yaroslava Z.], 140 AD3d 893, 894 [2016]; see Matter of Ashlyn Q. [Talia R.], 130 AD3d 1166 , 1169 [2015]), and the mother failed to do so here.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Detwiler v. Detwiler
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
When a claim of bias is raised, the inquiry on appeal is limited to whether the court’s “bias, if any, unjustly affected the result to the detriment of the [mother]” (Matter of Baby Girl Z. [Yaroslava Z.], 140 AD3d 893, 894 [2016] [internal quotation marks omitted]).
discussed Cited "see" Matter of Zyion B. (Fredisha B.)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2024 · signal: see · confidence high
This " 'clash in judicial roles,' " in which the Judge acted both as an advocate and as the trier of fact, "[a]t the very least . . . created the appearance of impropriety" ( Matter of Stampfler v Snow , 290 AD2d 595, 596 [3d Dept 2002]; see Matter of Baby Girl Z. [Yaroslava Z.] , 140 AD3d 893, 894-895 [2d Dept 2016]), particularly when the Judge aggressively cross-examined the mother regarding topics that were not relevant to the issue of the child's removal and seemed designed to embarrass and upset the mother ( see Matter of Siegell v Iqbal , 181 AD3d 951, 952 [2d Dept 2020]).
discussed Cited "see" Matter of George A. C. (Anthony C.)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2024 · signal: see · confidence high
In any event, when a claim of bias is raised, the inquiry on appeal is limited to whether the court's "bias, if any, unjustly affected the result to the detriment of the complaining party" ( Matter of Bowe v Bowe , 124 AD3d 645, 646 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Baby Girl Z. [Yaroslava Z.] , 140 AD3d at 894 ).
discussed Cited "see" Matter of Gregoire v. Yadram
N.Y. App. Div. · 2019 · signal: see · confidence high
In any event, when a claim of bias is raised, the inquiry on appeal is limited to whether the court's "bias, if any, unjustly affected the result to the detriment of the complaining party" ( Matter of Bowe v Bowe , 124 AD3d at 646 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Baby Girl Z. [Yaroslava Z.] , 140 AD3d at 894 ).
discussed Cited "see" Matter of Berg v. Berg
N.Y. App. Div. · 2018 · signal: see · confidence high
However, although the father's contention that the Family Court Judge was biased against him is unpreserved for appellate review, under the circumstances of this case, we reach the issue in the interest of justice ( see Matter of Baby Girl Z. [Yaroslava Z.] , 140 AD3d at 894 ). "[W]hen a claim of bias is raised, the inquiry on appeal is limited to whether the judge's bias, if any, unjustly affected the result to the detriment of the complaining party'" ( Matter of Bowe v Bowe , 124 AD3d at 646 , quoting Matter of Davis v Pignataro , 97 AD3d 677, 678 ; see Matter of Baby Girl Z. [Yaroslava Z.] …
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Baby Girl Z., Also Known as Maria G. Administration for Children’s Services, Respondent; Yaroslava Z., Appellant, Et Al., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 1.) in the Matter of Lawrence Z. Administration for Children’s Services, Respondent; Yaroslava Z., Appellant, Et Al., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 2.) in the Matter of Elizabeth G. Administration for Children’s Services, Respondent; Yaroslava Z., Appellant, Et Al., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 3.)
2015-03574.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jun 8, 2016.
140 A.D.3d 893
Leventhal, Dickerson, Sgroi, Cohen.
Cited by 22 opinions  |  Published

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Margaret P. McGowan, J.), dated April 28, 2015. The order, after a hearing, granted the application of the attorney for the children to direct that the subject children be immunized in accordance with Public Health Law § 2164.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law and in the[*894] exercise of discretion, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Queens County, for a new hearing on the application before a different Judge, to be held forthwith, and a new determination thereafter.

The petitioner commenced these child protective proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, and the subject children were remanded to the custody of the Administration for Children’s Services (hereinafter ACS). Following a hearing, the Family Court granted the application of the attorney for the children, joined by ACS, to direct that the children be immunized over the mother’s objection.

Public Health Law § 2164, which requires that an adequate dose or doses of an immunizing agent against certain diseases be administered to children at various intervals, does not apply to children whose parent or parents hold genuine and sincere religious beliefs which are contrary to the practices required therein (see Public Health Law § 2164 [9]). When a parent seeks to assert a religious objection to immunization under Public Health Law § 2164 (9), he or she must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that his or her opposition to immunization “ ‘stems from genuinely-held religious beliefs’ ” (Matter of Isaac J. [Joyce J.], 75 AD3d 506, 507 [2010], quoting Bowden v Iona Grammar School, 284 AD2d 357, 359 [2001]).

Here, the mother contends that the Family Court was biased against her, depriving her of a fair and impartial hearing. A party claiming court bias must preserve an objection and move for the court to recuse itself (see Matter of Bowe v Bowe, 124 AD3d 645, 646 [2015]; Matter of Kimberly Z. [Jason Z.], 88 AD3d 1181, 1184 [2011]). The mother did not move for the Family Court to recuse itself, and thus, her contention that the court was biased against her in the conduct of the hearing is unpreserved for appellate review (see Matter of Bowe v Bowe, 124 AD3d at 646; Matter of Kimberly Z. [Jason Z.], 88 AD3d at 1184). Although this issue is unpreserved for appellate review, we exercise our power to reach it in the interest of justice because the Family Court’s conduct deprived the mother of a fair hearing (see Altshuler Shaham Provident Funds, Ltd. v GML Tower, LLC, 21 NY3d 352, 361 n 4 [2013]; Martin v City of Cohoes, 37 NY2d 162, 165 [1975]). “[W]hen a claim of bias is raised, the ‘inquiry on appeal is limited to whether the judge’s bias, if any, unjustly affected the result to the detriment of the complaining party’ ” (Matter of Bowe v Bowe, 124 AD3d at 646, quoting Matter of Davis v Pignataro, 97 AD3d 677, 678 [2012]). Here, the record demonstrates that the Family Court had a predetermined outcome of the case in mind during the hearing.[*895] In addition to certain comments made by the court regarding the sincerity of the mother’s religious beliefs, the court took an adversarial stance, aggressively cross-examined the mother, continually interrupted her testimony, mocked her beliefs, and generally demonstrated bias. The Family Court’s bias unjustly affected the result of the hearing to the detriment of the mother.

Therefore, we reverse the order and remit the matter to the Family Court, Queens County, for a new hearing and determination on the application. Under the circumstances of this case, we deem it appropriate that the new hearing be held before a different Judge.

In light of our determination, we need not address the parties’ remaining contentions. Leventhal, J.P., Dickerson, Sgroi and Cohen, JJ., concur.

Motion by the attorney for the children to dismiss an appeal from an order of the Family Court, Queens County, dated April 28, 2015, on the ground that it has been rendered academic. By decision and order on motion of this Court dated January 11, 2016, the motion was held in abeyance and referred to the panel of Justices hearing the appeal for determination upon the argument or submission thereof.

Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, and the argument of the appeal, it is

Ordered that the motion is denied.

Leventhal, J.P., Dickerson, Sgroi and Cohen, JJ., concur.