Treatment trajectory · 2010 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2010
2018
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 20 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Abigail H. (Daniel D.)
In any event, that contention lacks merit inasmuch as the few gaps in the transcripts attributable to inaudible portions of the recordings are not significant and do not preclude meaningful appellate review ( see Matter of Haly S.W. , 141 AD3d 1106, 1107 [4th Dept 2016]; Matter of Devre S. [Carlee C.] , 74 AD3d 1848, 1849 [4th Dept 2010]; Matter of Savage v Cota , 66 AD3d 1491, 1492 [4th Dept 2009]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Willie B. v. Lavern B.
Furthermore, that evidence “supports the finding of derivative neglect with respect to [the two younger children inasmuch as] the impaired level of parental judgment . . . shown by [the mother’s] behavior created a substantial risk” of imminent danger to the younger children as well (Matter of Peter C., 278 AD2d 911, 911 [2000] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Kennedie M. [Douglas M.], 89 AD3d 1544, 1545 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 808 [2012]; Matter of Devre S. [Carlee C.], 74 AD3d 1848, 1849 [2010]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Van Court v. Wadsworth
We note at the outset that, contrary to the mother’s contention, the gaps in the trial transcript resulting from inaudible portions of the audio recording are not so significant as to preclude meaningful review of the order on appeal (see Matter of Devre S. [Carlee CJ, 74 AD3d 1848, 1849 [2010]; cf. Matter of Alessio v Burch, 78 AD3d 1620, 1620 [2010]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Van Court v. Wadsworth
We note at the outset that, contrary to the mother’s contention, the gaps in the trial transcript resulting from inaudible portions of the audio recording are not so significant as to preclude meaningful review of the order on appeal (see Matter of Devre S. [Carlee CJ, 74 AD3d 1848, 1849 [2010]; cf. Matter of Alessio v Burch, 78 AD3d 1620, 1620 [2010]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Cowell v. Pembrock
In seeking a change in the established custody arrangement, the mother was required to show “ ‘a change in circumstances [that] reflects a real need for change to ensure the best interests] of the child’ ” (Matter of Moore v Moore, 78 AD3d 1630, 1630 [2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 704 [2011]), and the record supports the court’s conclusion that the mother failed to make that showing (see Matter of Horn v Horn, 74 AD3d 1848, 1848 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 710 [2010]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Cowell v. Pembrock
In seeking a change in the established custody arrangement, the mother was required to show “ ‘a change in circumstances [that] reflects a real need for change to ensure the best interests] of the child’ ” (Matter of Moore v Moore, 78 AD3d 1630, 1630 [2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 704 [2011]), and the record supports the court’s conclusion that the mother failed to make that showing (see Matter of Horn v Horn, 74 AD3d 1848, 1848 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 710 [2010]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In re Jezekiah R.-A.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
None of the explanations offered by the child’s mother or father to the child protective caseworker was consistent with the nature and severity of the injuries (see Matter of Devre S. [Carlee C.], 74 AD3d 1848, 1849 [2010]).
discussed
Cited "see"
Matter of Jayron J. (Ronecia H.)
Once the petitioner "establishe[s] a prima facie case, the burden of going forward shifts to respondent[ ] to rebut the evidence of parental culpability" ( Philip M. , 82 NY2d at 244 ; see generally Matter of Devre S. [Carlee C.] , 74 AD3d 1848, 1849 [4th Dept 2010]).
discussed
Cited "see"
Matter of Ja'Moure D.S. (Jasmine M.)
The abuse of the child "is so closely connected with the care [of her siblings] as to indicate that [those children are] equally at risk" ( Matter of Marino S. , 100 NY2d 361, 374 [2003], cert denied 540 US 1059 [2003]; see Matter of Devre S. [Carlee C.] , 74 AD3d 1848 , 1849 [4th Dept 2010]).
discussed
Cited "see"
Matter of Sofia M. (Erie County Dept. of Social Servs.)
Once petitioner "established a prima facie case, the burden of going forward shift[ed] to [the mother] to rebut the evidence of . . . culpability" ( Philip M. , 82 NY2d at 244 ; see generally Matter of Devre S. [Carlee C.] , 74 AD3d 1848, 1849 [4th Dept 2010]), which she failed to do.
discussed
Cited "see"
Matter of Dorian C. (Cyncere G.)
The abuse of the middle child "is so closely connected with the care [of his siblings] as to indicate that [those children are] equally at risk" ( Matter of Marino S. , 100 NY2d 361, 374 [2003], cert denied 540 US 1059 [2003]; see Matter of Devre S. [Carlee C.] , 74 AD3d 1848 , 1849 [4th Dept 2010]).
discussed
Cited "see"
Matter of Jaycob S.
Although the burden of proving child abuse or neglect rests with the petitioner ( see id. ; Matter of Mary R.F. [Angela I.] , 144 AD3d 1493, 1493 [4th Dept 2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 915 [2017]), once the petitioner "has established a prima facie case, the burden of going forward shifts to [the] respondents to rebut the evidence of . . . culpability" ( Philip M. , 82 NY2d at 244 ; see generally Matter of Devre S. [Carlee C.] , 74 AD3d 1848, 1849 [4th Dept 2010]).
discussed
Cited "see"
Matter of Leo M. (Alicia M.)
Inasmuch as petitioner "established a prima facie case, the burden of going forward shift[ed] to respondent to rebut the evidence of [caretaker] culpability" ( Philip M. , 82 NY2d at 244 ; see generally Matter of Devre S. [Carlee C.] , 74 AD3d 1848, 1849 [4th Dept 2010]).
discussed
Cited "see"
Matter of Leonard P. (Patricia M.)
(2×)
Although the burden of establishing child abuse rests with the petitioner ( see id. ; Matter of Mary R.F. [Angela I.] , 144 AD3d 1493, 1493 [4th Dept 2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 915 [2017]), once the petitioner "has established a prima facie case, the burden of going forward shifts to [the] respondents to rebut the evidence of parental culpability" ( Philip M. , 82 NY2d at 244 ; see generally Matter of Devre S. [Carlee C.] , 74 AD3d 1848, 1849 [4th Dept 2010]).
discussed
Cited "see"
Matter of Grayson R.V. (Jessica D.--David P.)
Although the burden of proving child abuse rests with the petitioner ( see id. ; Matter of Mary R.F. [Angela I.] , 144 AD3d 1493, 1493 [4th Dept 2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 915 [2017]), once the petitioner "has established a prima facie case, the burden of going forward shifts to [the] respondents to rebut the evidence of parental culpability" ( Philip M. , 82 NY2d at 244 ; see generally Matter of Devre S. [Carlee C.] , 74 AD3d 1848, 1849 [4th Dept 2010]).
discussed
Cited "see"
K., ZARHIANNA, MTR. OF
Petitioner established a prima facie case of child abuse by submitting evidence that the child sustained injuries that “would ordinarily not occur absent an act or omission of [the father], and . . . that [the father was] the caretaker[] of the child at the time the injury occurred” (Matter of Philip M., 82 NY2d 238, 243 ; see Family Ct Act § 1046 [a] [ii]), and the father failed to rebut the presumption that he was responsible for the child’s injuries (see Matter of Devre S. [Carlee C.], 74 AD3d 1848, 1849 ; Matter of Damien S., 45 AD3d 1384, 1384 , lv denied 10 NY3d 701 ).
discussed
Cited "see"
In re Zarhianna K.
Petitioner established a prima facie case of child abuse by submitting evidence that the child sustained injuries that “would ordinarily not occur absent an act or omission of [the father], and . . . that [the father was] the caretaker[ ] of the child at the time the injury occurred” (Matter of Philip M., 82 NY2d 238, 243 [1993]; see Family Ct Act § 1046 [a] [ii]), and the father failed to rebut the presumption that he was responsible for the child’s injuries (see Matter of Devre S. [Carlee C.], 74 AD3d 1848, 1849 [2010]; Matter of Damien S., 45 AD3d 1384 , 1384 [2007], lv denied 10 NY3…
discussed
Cited "see"
In re Zarhianna K.
Petitioner established a prima facie case of child abuse by submitting evidence that the child sustained injuries that “would ordinarily not occur absent an act or omission of [the father], and . . . that [the father was] the caretaker[ ] of the child at the time the injury occurred” (Matter of Philip M., 82 NY2d 238, 243 [1993]; see Family Ct Act § 1046 [a] [ii]), and the father failed to rebut the presumption that he was responsible for the child’s injuries (see Matter of Devre S. [Carlee C.], 74 AD3d 1848, 1849 [2010]; Matter of Damien S., 45 AD3d 1384 , 1384 [2007], lv denied 10 NY3…
discussed
Cited "see"
M., KENNEDIE, MTR. OF
That testimony “supports the finding of derivative neglect with respect to [the subject children inasmuch as] the impaired level of parental judgment . . . shown by [the father’s] behavior created a substantial risk to [those children]” (Matter of Peter C., 278 AD2d 911, 911 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Devre S., 74 AD3d 1848 ; Matter of Jovon J., 51 AD3d 1395 ).
discussed
Cited "see"
In re Kennedie M.
That testimony “supports the finding of derivative neglect with respect to [the subject children inasmuch as] the impaired level of parental judgment . . . shown by [the father’s] behavior created a substantial risk to [those children]” (Matter of Peter C., 278 AD2d 911, 911 [2000] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Devre S. [Carlee C.], 74 AD3d 1848 [2010]; Matter of Jovon J., 51 AD3d 1395 [2008]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Laura L. Horn
v.
Jeffrey H. Horn
v.
Jeffrey H. Horn
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jun 11, 2010.
Cited by 4 opinions | Published
Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Cattaraugus County (Lynn L. Hartley, J.H.O.), entered February 23, 2009 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order granted respondent’s motion and dismissed the petition.
It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Petitioner mother appeals from an order dismissing, without prejudice, her petition seeking to modify a prior custody order entered upon consent of the parties. Contrary to the contention of the mother, Family Court properly granted respondent father’s motion to dismiss the petition. “A party seeking a change in an established custody arrangement must show ‘a change in circumstances [that] reflects a real need for change to ensure the best interests] of the child’ ” (Matter of Di Fiore v Scott, 2 AD3d 1417, 1417 [2003]; see Matter of Chrysler v Fabian, 66 AD3d 1446 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 715 [2010]) and, here, the mother failed to meet that burden. The court should not change an existing custody arrangement “merely because of changes in marital status, economic circumstances or improvements in moral or psychological adjustment, at least so long as the custodial parent has not been shown to be unfit, or perhaps less fit, to continue as the proper custodian” (Obey v Degling, 37 NY2d 768, 770 [1975]; see Di Fiore, 2 AD3d 1417 [2003]; Fox v Fox, 177 AD2d 209, 211 [1992]). We conclude that the court’s determination has a sound and substantial basis in the record, and we therefore will not disturb it {see Matter of James D. v Tammy W., 45 AD3d 1358 [2007]).
Finally, the record before us does not establish whether a conflict of interest existed with respect to the attorney for the children’s representation of all five children in question. Present—Scudder, P.J., Martoche, Sconiers, Green and Gorski, JJ.