In re Dillon S., 249 A.D.2d 984 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998). · Go Syfert
In re Dillon S., 249 A.D.2d 984 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
12 citation events (12 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: W.K.J. Young Group v. Zoning Board of Appeals (nyappdiv, 2005-03-18)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) W.K.J. Young Group v. Zoning Board of Appeals
N.Y. App. Div. · 2005 · confidence medium
Mills, 249 AD2d 984, 985 [1998], lv denied 92 NY2d 813 [1998]; see also Matter of Pecoraro v Board of Appeals of Town of Hempstead, 2 NY3d 608, 612-613 [2004]; Matter of Ifrah v Utschig, 98 NY2d 304, 307 [2002]; Matter of Sasso v Osgood, 86 NY2d 374, 384-386 [1995]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Hampton Hill Villas Condominium Board of Managers v. Town of Amherst Zoning Board of Appeals
N.Y. App. Div. · 2004 · confidence medium
Mills, 249 AD2d 984, 985 [1998], lv denied 92 NY2d 813 [1998]; Matter of Saglibene v Baum, 246 AD2d 599, 600 [1998]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Homeyer v. Town of Skaneateles Zoning Board of Appeals
N.Y. App. Div. · 2003 · signal: see also · confidence low
We further conclude that the determination of respondent is rationally based on the record and not illegal (see Ifrah, 98 NY2d at 308-309 ; Matter of Orchard Michael, Inc. v Falcon, 65 NY2d 1007 , 1009; see also J.H., Jr., 249 AD2d at 985 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Dillon S. and Another, Children Alleged to be Neglected. Erie County Department of Social Services, Respondent Kim S.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Apr 29, 1998.
249 A.D.2d 984
Cited by 4 opinions  |  Published

—Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and matter remitted to Erie County Family Court for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum: Following an investigation into allegations that excessive corporal punishment had been inflicted on respondent’s two sons. Family Court issued an ex parte order placing the children in foster care. Following a hearing pursuant to Family Court Act § 1028, the court ordered that the children remain in foster care during the pendency of the neglect proceedings. A fact-finding hearing on the neglect petition was held, at which the court allowed petitioner to rely entirely upon the testimony adduced at the section 1028 hearing. Respondent objected, arguing that the section 1028 hearing had a “limited purpose” and that due process requires that a full fact-finding hearing be held.

The court erred in incorporating into the fact-finding hearing the testimony adduced at the section 1028 hearing, without first determining that the witnesses were unavailable (see, Matter of Christina A., 216 AD2d 928). The evidentiary standard in a fact-finding hearing is higher than that in a section 1028 hearing (see, Family Ct Act .§ 1046 [b] [ii]; [c]), and the focus of a section 1028 hearing is narrow (see, Family Ct Act § 1028 [a]). Consequently, the wholesale incorporation of the testimony at the section 1028 hearing into the fact-finding hearing is improper. Because the court based its factual findings entirely upon the prior testimony, the error cannot be deemed harmless (see, Matter of Raymond J., 224 AD2d 337, 338; cf., Matter of Christina A., supra). We therefore remit this matter for a fact-finding hearing to be held before a different Judge within 60 days of the date of the order of this Court. (Appeal from Order of Erie County Family Court, Mix, J.— Neglect.) Present — Denman, P. J., Green, Pigott, Jr., Callahan and Fallon, JJ.