Treatment trajectory · 2001 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2001
2013
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Siri V. (Julianna V.)
A preponderance of the evidence supports Family Court's finding that the children's physical, mental, or emotional condition was in imminent danger of becoming impaired as a result of the mother's long-standing history of mental illness and resistance to treatment, notwithstanding the absence of a definitive diagnosis ( see Family Court Act §§ 1046[b][i]; 1012[f][i][B]; Matter of Caress S. , 250 AD2d 490, 490 [1st Dept 1998]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Siri V. (Julianna V.)
A preponderance of the evidence supports Family Court's finding that the children's physical, mental, or emotional condition was in imminent danger of becoming impaired as a result of the mother's long-standing history of mental illness and resistance to treatment, notwithstanding the absence of a definitive diagnosis ( see Family Court Act §§ 1046[b][i]; 1012[f][i][B]; Matter of Caress S. , 250 AD2d 490, 490 [1st Dept 1998]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In re Thomas B.
Contrary to the mother’s contention, a finding of neglect based on mental illness need not be supported by a particular diagnosis or by medical evidence (see Matter of Caress S., 250 AD2d 490, 490 [1998]; Matter of Zariyasta S., 158 AD2d 45, 48 [1990]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In re Thomas B.
Contrary to the mother’s contention, a finding of neglect based on mental illness need not be supported by a particular diagnosis or by medical evidence (see Matter of Caress S., 250 AD2d 490, 490 [1998]; Matter of Zariyasta S., 158 AD2d 45, 48 [1990]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In re Makenzie C.
Contrary to the sole contention raised by the mother on appeal, the finding of neglect against her was supported by a preponderance of the evidence, as the evidence adduced at the hearing established that she failed to exercise the minimum degree of care to prevent the imminent danger of the emotional and mental impairment of the subject children (see Family Ct Act §§ 1012 [f] [i]; 1046 [b] [i]; Matter of Andrew B. [Deborah B.], 73 AD3d 1036, 1036-1037 [2010]; Matter of Daniel D., 57 AD3d 444, 444 [2008]; Matter of Faith J., 47 AD3d 630, 630 [2008]; Matter of My’Kia A., 8 AD3d 481, 482 [20…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In re Makenzie C.
Contrary to the sole contention raised by the mother on appeal, the finding of neglect against her was supported by a preponderance of the evidence, as the evidence adduced at the hearing established that she failed to exercise the minimum degree of care to prevent the imminent danger of the emotional and mental impairment of the subject children (see Family Ct Act §§ 1012 [f] [i]; 1046 [b] [i]; Matter of Andrew B. [Deborah B.], 73 AD3d 1036, 1036-1037 [2010]; Matter of Daniel D., 57 AD3d 444, 444 [2008]; Matter of Faith J., 47 AD3d 630, 630 [2008]; Matter of My’Kia A., 8 AD3d 481, 482 [20…
cited
Cited "see"
Matter of Catalina A. (Evelyn C.)
Moreover, "[t]he absence of a diagnosed condition does not preclude a finding of neglect" ( Matter of Danielle M. , 151 AD2d 240, 243 ; see Matter of Caress S. , 250 AD2d 490, 490 ).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Matter of Adam T. (Artur T.--Asai G.)
The evidence further demonstrated that the child was placed at imminent risk of harm as a result of the father's behavior and untreated mental illness and substance abuse, as the young child was found wandering alone in the shelter where the family resided and the father failed to take responsibility, instead incorrectly blaming shelter staff for leaving a broken lock on the unit ( see Matter of Jarrett SS. [Jade TT.-Scott SS.] , 183 AD3d 1031 [3d Dept 2020]; see also Matter of Caress S., 250 AD2d 490 [1 st Dept 1998]) .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In re Jayvien E.
Expert testimony or a definitive psychiatric diagnosis is not required to show a parent suffers from a mental illness because “the consequences of the proceedings are temporary rather than permanent” (Matter of Zariyasta S., 158 AD2d 45, 48 [1990]; see also Matter of Caress S., 250 AD2d 490 [1998]).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In re Dishana R.
Indeed, the testimony of the child’s school teacher and school principal, the assistant pastor of the mother’s parish, a Department of Social Services’ caseworker, and the mother herself demonstrated that her behavior towards the child constituted conduct “requiring the aid of the court” (Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [B]; see Matter of Tevina W., 237 AD2d 452 [1997]; Matter of Zariyasta S., 158 AD2d 45, 48 [1990]; Matter of Danielle M., 151 AD2d 240, 242 [1989]; see also Matter of Caress S., 250 AD2d 490 [1998]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Warner Bros. Domestic Television Distribution, Inc., Appellant-Respondent
v.
Quintel Entertainment, Inc., and D.M. Media Management, Inc.
v.
Quintel Entertainment, Inc., and D.M. Media Management, Inc.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
May 21, 1998.
Published
—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Friedman, J.), entered September 30, 1997,[*491] unanimously affirmed for the reasons stated by Friedman, J., with costs and disbursements. No opinion. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Tom, Mazzarelli and Saxe, JJ.