Matter of Chaya K. (Allen K.), 149 A.D.3d 935 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2017). · Go Syfert
Search
Matter of Chaya K. (Allen K.), 149 A.D.3d 935 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2017). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
24 citation events (24 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Matter of Barringer v. Town of Newburgh, 242 A.D.3d 983 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2025)
Treatment trajectory · 2020 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2020 2023 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 937 cited at this page1 citing case
  • Matter of Barringer v. Town of Newburgh, 242 A.D.3d 983 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2025).published 15 cites
    "Accordingly, [w]hen a hearing officer's determination is contested, the court's role is limited to ascertaining whether that determination has a rational basis, that is, whether it is not affected by an error of law or not arbitrary and c…
At page 938 cited at this page1 citing case
  • Matter of Barringer v. Town of Newburgh, 242 A.D.3d 983 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2025).published 15 cites
    "Accordingly, [w]hen a hearing officer's determination is contested, the court's role is limited to ascertaining whether that determination has a rational basis, that is, whether it is not affected by an error of law or not arbitrary and c…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Chaya K. Administration for Children’s Services, Respondent; Allen K., Appellant, Et Al., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 1.) in the Matter of Rivah K. Administration for Children’s Services, Respondent; Allen K., Appellant, Et Al., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 2.) in the Matter of Baby Girl D. Administration for Children’s Services, Respondent; Allen K., Appellant, Et Al., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 3.)
2016-00361.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Apr 19, 2017.
Published opinion
149 A.D.3d 935
Chambers, Austin, Roman, Barros.
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published

Appeal by the father from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (llana Gruebel, J.), dated December 31, 2015. The order, insofar as appealed from, after a hearing, granted the petitioner’s application pursuant to Family Court Act § 1027 to place the child Baby Girl D. in the custody of the petitioner pending the outcome of the neglect proceedings.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

After a hearing, the Family Court properly granted the petitioner’s application pursuant to Family Court Act § 1027 to temporarily remove the child Baby Girl D. from the parents’ care and place her in the custody of the petitioner pending the outcome of the neglect proceedings. There was a sound and substantial basis in the record for the court’s determination that removal was necessary to avoid imminent risk to the child’s life or health, and that the risk could not be mitigated by reasonable efforts short of removal (see Family Ct Act § 1027; Nicholson v Scoppetta, 3 NY3d 357, 378 [2004]).

Chambers, J.P., Austin, Roman and Barros, JJ., concur.