In re Crystal AA., 271 A.D.2d 771 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000). · Go Syfert
Search
In re Crystal AA., 271 A.D.2d 771 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
9 citation events (9 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Matter of Carmine GG. (Christopher HH.) (nyappdiv, 2019-07-03)
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Carmine GG. (Christopher HH.)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2019 · confidence medium
However, under the circumstances of this case, we find that respondent's appeals, directed at the scope of and the court's authority to issue Family Ct Act § 1029 orders, raise a substantial and novel issue that is likely to recur, yet evade review, and that, therefore, the exception to the mootness doctrine applies ( see Matter of Brianna L. [Marie A.] , 103 AD3d 181 , 185-186 [2012]; Matter of Crystal AA. , 271 AD2d 771, 771 [2000], lv dismissed 95 NY2d 903 [2000]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Carlos L. v. Sandy C.
N.Y.C. Fam. Ct. · 2016 · confidence medium
While courts have been justifiably reluctant to authorize disclosure in family offense and other Family Court proceedings (Matter of Vanessa R., 148 AD2d 989 [1989]; Matter of Crystal AA., 271 AD2d 771, 772 [2000], lv dismissed 95 NY2d 903 [2000]; Matter of Kunz v Kunz, 119 Misc 2d 80, 81 [1983]; K.Z. v P.M., 29 Misc 3d at 574 ), here the respondent has served a demand for a bill of particulars concerning the family offense petition filed in this proceeding.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Ameillia RR.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
Matter of Fatima M., 16 AD3d 263, 272-273 [2005]; Matter of Ashley B., 2 AD3d 1402, 1402 [2003], lv denied 2 NY3d 702 [2004]; Matter of Keith JJ., 295 AD2d 644, 646 [2002]; Matter of Enrique B., 267 AD2d 75, 75-76 [1999], lv denied 94 NY2d 762 [2000]; Matter of Megan G., 266 AD2d 835 [1999], lv denied 94 NY2d 761 [2000]; Matter of Tyler K, 261 AD2d 834, 834 [1999]; Matter of Dawn H., 221 AD2d 235 [1995]; Matter of Diana D., 218 AD2d 697, 697-698 [1995]; cf. Matter of Crystal AA., 271 AD2d 771, 771 [2000], appeal dismissed 95 NY2d 903 [2000]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Ameillia RR.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
Matter of Fatima M., 16 AD3d 263, 272-273 [2005]; Matter of Ashley B., 2 AD3d 1402, 1402 [2003], lv denied 2 NY3d 702 [2004]; Matter of Keith JJ., 295 AD2d 644, 646 [2002]; Matter of Enrique B., 267 AD2d 75, 75-76 [1999], lv denied 94 NY2d 762 [2000]; Matter of Megan G., 266 AD2d 835 [1999], lv denied 94 NY2d 761 [2000]; Matter of Tyler K, 261 AD2d 834, 834 [1999]; Matter of Dawn H., 221 AD2d 235 [1995]; Matter of Diana D., 218 AD2d 697, 697-698 [1995]; cf. Matter of Crystal AA., 271 AD2d 771, 771 [2000], appeal dismissed 95 NY2d 903 [2000]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re John H.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2008 · confidence medium
Family Ct Act § 1038 directs that the provisions of CPLR article 31 are applicable to Family Ct Act article 10 proceedings, with certain limitations not relevant here (see Family Ct Act § 1038 [d]; see also Family Ct Act § 165 [a]; Matter of Crystal AA., 271 AD2d 771, 771-772 [2000], lv dismissed 95 NY2d 903 [2000]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." In re Michael A.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2010 · signal: compare · confidence low
In light of Family Court’s “broad discretion” to make temporary emergency placement decisions (Matter of Damien X., 217 AD2d 762, 763 [1995]), and the fact that the hearing was appropriately scheduled to occur promptly thereafter, the issues presented are not sufficiently substantial to warrant the exception to the mootness doctrine (see Matter of Brenden O., 13 AD3d 779, 780 [2004]; compare Matter of Crystal AA., 271 AD2d 771 , 771 [2000], Iv dismissed 95 NY2d 903 [2000]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Crystal AA., a Child Alleged to be Abused. Fulton County Department of Social Services, Petitioner Harry CC., Respondent Karen L. Kimball, as Law Guardian
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Apr 13, 2000.
271 A.D.2d 771
2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4219
Graffeo.
Cited by 6 opinions  |  Published
Graffeo, J.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Fulton County (Jung, J.), entered August 4, 1999, which, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, granted respondent’s motion to compel Crystal AA. to submit to an examination before trial.

This case arises out of a child protective proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, alleging that Crystal AA. had been sexually abused by respondent. During the pendency of the proceeding, respondent moved for an order directing the subject child to submit to an examination before trial which was granted by Family Court. The Law Guardian now appeals.*

Although the examination before trial pursuant to Family Court’s order has already been conducted, we view this issue as significant and novel, and likely to reoccur yet evade review, thereby falling within the exception to the mootness doctrine (cf., Matter of Schulz v State of New York, 198 AD2d 624, 626, appeal dismissed 83 NY2d 906; People ex rel. Wagner v Infante, 167 AD2d 630, 631-632). In making this determination, we are cognizant of the fact that such depositions would commonly be conducted prior to appellate review in similar situations.

Addressing the substantive issue, Family Court Act § 1038 (d) generally permits the application of CPLR 3101 disclosure[*772] provisions in child protective proceedings. Since a child is the subject and not a party in a Family Court Act article 10 abuse or neglect proceeding, the child’s deposition is governed by CPLR 3101 (a) (4) which pertains to “any other person.” Furthermore, a litigant seeking discovery from a child must demonstrate adequate special circumstances in addition to relevance and materiality (Matter of Vanessa R., 148 AD2d 989; see, Matter of Eva B., 160 AD2d 457). Once a movant meets this burden, the court must exercise sound judgment and weigh “the need of the party for the discovery to assist in the preparation of the case and any potential harm to the child from the discovery” (Family Ct Act § 1038 [d]; see, Matter of Jessica R., 78 NY2d 1031). In child protective proceedings, the factors to be weighed may include, but are not limited to, the age of the child, the emotional and physical health of the child, the nature of the family relationship, the nature of the allegations at issue in the proceedings and the need of the respondent to obtain information from the child. In recognition of the emotional trauma or embarrassment that a child may experience in the discovery climate, Family Court Act § 1038 (d) provides for the issuance of a protective order limiting or precluding such depositions.

Here, the record does not manifest explanation or reasoning indicating that Family Court conducted the balancing of the need for the deposition and the potential harm to the child as required by Family Court Act § 1038. Under such circumstances, we conclude that Family Court’s decision was deficient.

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Peters and Mugglin, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and motion denied.

The Law Guardian moved pursuant to Family Court Act § 1114 (b) for a stay pending the appeal which was denied by this Court in August 1999.