Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
13 New York opinions name it 4 courts 1980–2026 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
In re Salvatore M.green2 sentences2013The order directing respondent to submit to a mental health evaluation should he petition for any contact with the child was proper because such requirement is in the child’s best interests (see Matter of Salvatore M. [Nicole M.], 104 AD3d 769, 770 [2d Dept 2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 858 [2013]; Matter of Enrique T. v Annamarie M., 15 AD3d 310 [1st Dept 2005]). 2013The order directing respondent to submit to a mental health evaluation should he petition for any contact with the child was proper because such requirement is in the child’s best interests (see Matter of Salvatore M. [Nicole M.], 104 AD3d 769, 770 [2d Dept 2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 858 [2013]; Matter of Enrique T. v Annamarie M., 15 AD3d 310 [1st Dept 2005]). | 2 | 2 |
In re Victoria H.green2 sentences2004In a Second Department case, Matter of Victoria H. ( 255 AD2d 442 [2d Dept 1998]), an appeal of a 1997 Family Court decision, the Appellate Division relied on Family Court Act § 1056 (4) to permit orders of protection against the father of two girls lasting until the children reached the age of 18, despite the plain language of Family Court Act § 1056 (4) that limits its application to persons who are not related to the child by blood or marriage. 2004In a Second Department case, Matter of Victoria H. ( 255 AD2d 442 [2d Dept 1998]), an appeal of a 1997 Family Court decision, the Appellate Division relied on Family Court Act § 1056 (4) to permit orders of protection against the father of two girls lasting until the children reached the age of 18, despite the plain language of Family Court Act § 1056 (4) that limits its application to persons who are not related to the child by blood or marriage. [*3] Although this court is bound to follow the precedent set by the Second Department, this court nevertheless finds it impossible to reconcile the | 1 | 3 |
W.-H., ARIEL C, MTR. OFgreen2 sentences2026Respondent therefore failed to preserve for our review his sole contention in both appeals that Family Court lacked the authority to impose the orders of protection pursuant to Family Court Act § 1056 (4) ( see Matter of Ariel C.W.-H. [Christine W.] , 89 AD3d 1438, 1438 [4th Dept 2011]; see generally Matter of Pauline E. v Renelder P. , 37 AD3d 1145, 1146 [4th Dept 2007]). 2026Respondent therefore failed to preserve for our review his sole contention in both appeals that Family Court lacked the authority to impose the orders of protection pursuant to Family Court Act § 1056 (4) ( see Matter of Ariel C.W.-H. [Christine W.] , 89 AD3d 1438, 1438 [4th Dept 2011]; see generally Matter of Pauline E. v Renelder P. , 37 AD3d 1145, 1146 [4th Dept 2007]). | 1 | 1 |
Pauline E. v. Renelder P.green2 sentences2026Respondent therefore failed to preserve for our review his sole contention in both appeals that Family Court lacked the authority to impose the orders of protection pursuant to Family Court Act § 1056 (4) ( see Matter of Ariel C.W.-H. [Christine W.] , 89 AD3d 1438, 1438 [4th Dept 2011]; see generally Matter of Pauline E. v Renelder P. , 37 AD3d 1145, 1146 [4th Dept 2007]). 2026Respondent therefore failed to preserve for our review his sole contention in both appeals that Family Court lacked the authority to impose the orders of protection pursuant to Family Court Act § 1056 (4) ( see Matter of Ariel C.W.-H. [Christine W.] , 89 AD3d 1438, 1438 [4th Dept 2011]; see generally Matter of Pauline E. v Renelder P. , 37 AD3d 1145, 1146 [4th Dept 2007]). | 1 | 1 |
Matter of Nevaeh T. (Abreanna T.--Wilbert J.)green1 sentence2018Therefore, if, at the time of disposition, Makayla resided in the same household as Annabella and Caleb J., the order of protection as to Makayla could not exceed one year ( see Family Ct Act § 1056 [4]; In the Matter of Nevaeh T. [Abreanna T.—Wilbert J.] , 151 AD3d 1766, 1768 [2017]). | 1 | 1 |
Cayuga County Health & Human Services v. Dennis E.M.green1 sentence2006Although respondent is correct that Family Court Act § 1056 (4) does not apply here because he was the father of the boys (see Matter of Cayuga County Health & Human Servs. v Dennis E.M., 303 AD2d 1053, 1054 [2003]), the court nevertheless had the authority to issue the orders of protection pursuant to Family Court Act § 1056 (1). | 1 | 1 |
In re the H./M. Childrengreen1 sentence1999Children ( 217 AD2d 164, 169 [1st Dept 1995]): “Family Court Act § 1052 (a) lists five dispositional alternatives in child protective proceedings: (1) suspending judgment in accordance with Family Court Act § 1053; (2) releasing the child to the custody of the parent or other person legally responsible in accord with Family Court Act § 1054; (3) placing the child, in accordance with Family Court Act § 1055, with, inter alia, a relative or other suitable person for a one-year period; (4) making an order of protection under Family Court Act § 1056; or (5) placing the respondent under supervision | 1 | 1 |
People v. Lewisgreen1 sentence1980(See Family Ct Act, § 812; see, also, People v Lewis, 29 NY2d 923 .) Thus children, victimized by an estranged parent committing acts other than those countenanced by section 812 of the Family Court Act could not proceed under article 8 and could not avail themselves of the protective remedies of article 10 of the Family Court Act, which include a final order of protection under section 1056 of the Family Court Act. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In re Shaun X.
green
2 sentences2006Matter of Shaun X., 228 AD2d 730 [1996]; Matter of Christopher O., 211 AD2d 980 [1995]; Matter of Esther CC., 194 AD2d 949 [1993]), they should not be followed as the clear language of section 1056 (4) does not authorize orders of protection until a child’s 18th birthday against one “related by blood or marriage” (see Matter of Cayuga County Health & Human Servs. v Dennis E.M., supra; Matter of Gabriel A., supra at 483-484). 2006Matter of Shaun X., 228 AD2d 730 [1996]; Matter of Christopher O., 211 AD2d 980 [1995]; Matter of Esther CC., 194 AD2d 949 [1993]), they should not be followed as the clear language of section 1056 (4) does not authorize orders of protection until a child’s 18th birthday against one “related by blood or marriage” (see Matter of Cayuga County Health & Human Servs. v Dennis E.M., supra; Matter of Gabriel A., supra at 483-484). | 4 | 2004–2006 |
In re Esther CC.
green
2 sentences2006Matter of Shaun X., 228 AD2d 730 [1996]; Matter of Christopher O., 211 AD2d 980 [1995]; Matter of Esther CC., 194 AD2d 949 [1993]), they should not be followed as the clear language of section 1056 (4) does not authorize orders of protection until a child’s 18th birthday against one “related by blood or marriage” (see Matter of Cayuga County Health & Human Servs. v Dennis E.M., supra; Matter of Gabriel A., supra at 483-484). 2006Matter of Shaun X., 228 AD2d 730 [1996]; Matter of Christopher O., 211 AD2d 980 [1995]; Matter of Esther CC., 194 AD2d 949 [1993]), they should not be followed as the clear language of section 1056 (4) does not authorize orders of protection until a child’s 18th birthday against one “related by blood or marriage” (see Matter of Cayuga County Health & Human Servs. v Dennis E.M., supra; Matter of Gabriel A., supra at 483-484). | 3 | 2004–2006 |
In re Christopher O.
green
2 sentences2006Matter of Shaun X., 228 AD2d 730 [1996]; Matter of Christopher O., 211 AD2d 980 [1995]; Matter of Esther CC., 194 AD2d 949 [1993]), they should not be followed as the clear language of section 1056 (4) does not authorize orders of protection until a child’s 18th birthday against one “related by blood or marriage” (see Matter of Cayuga County Health & Human Servs. v Dennis E.M., supra; Matter of Gabriel A., supra at 483-484). 2006Matter of Shaun X., 228 AD2d 730 [1996]; Matter of Christopher O., 211 AD2d 980 [1995]; Matter of Esther CC., 194 AD2d 949 [1993]), they should not be followed as the clear language of section 1056 (4) does not authorize orders of protection until a child’s 18th birthday against one “related by blood or marriage” (see Matter of Cayuga County Health & Human Servs. v Dennis E.M., supra; Matter of Gabriel A., supra at 483-484). | 3 | 2004–2006 |
Clifford B. v. Commissioner of Social Services
neutral
2 sentences2004With respect to the appropriateness of an extended order of protection under Family Court Act § 1056 (1), Besharov, Practice Commentaries (McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 29A, Family Ct Act § 1056, at 294) state, “Since an order of protection can only be made in assistance to a primary dispositional order (and runs ‘concurrently’ with it), it automatically lapses at the termination of the primary order.” The First Department, in Matter of Maritza B. ( 164 AD2d 838 [1990]), impliedly held that although in 1986 the Family Court had the authority to issue an order of protection for a duration lo 2004With respect to the appropriateness of an extended order of protection under Family Court Act § 1056 (1), Besharov, Practice Commentaries (McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 29A, Family Ct Act § 1056, at 294) state, "Since an order of protection can only be made in assistance to a primary dispositional order (and runs 'concurrently' with it), it automatically lapses at the termination of the primary order." The First Department, in Matter of Maritza B. ( 164 AD2d 838 [1990]), impliedly held that although in 1986 the Family Court had the authority to issue an order of protection for a duration lo | 3 | 1990–2004 |
Enrique T. v. Annamarie M.
green
2 sentences2013The order directing respondent to submit to a mental health evaluation should he petition for any contact with the child was proper because such requirement is in the child’s best interests (see Matter of Salvatore M. [Nicole M.], 104 AD3d 769, 770 [2d Dept 2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 858 [2013]; Matter of Enrique T. v Annamarie M., 15 AD3d 310 [1st Dept 2005]). 2013The order directing respondent to submit to a mental health evaluation should he petition for any contact with the child was proper because such requirement is in the child’s best interests (see Matter of Salvatore M. [Nicole M.], 104 AD3d 769, 770 [2d Dept 2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 858 [2013]; Matter of Enrique T. v Annamarie M., 15 AD3d 310 [1st Dept 2005]). | 2 | 2013–2013 |
In re Erin G.
green
2 sentences2005See, Matter of Victoria H ., 255 AD2d 442 (App. Div. 2d Dept. 1998); Matter of Kanisha W ., 233 AD2d 325 (App. Div. 2d Dept. 1996); Matter of Erin G ., 139 AD2d 737 (App. Div. 2d Dept. 1988); Matter of Shaun X ., 228 AD2d 730 (App. Div. 3rd Dept. 1996). 1990(Matter of Maritza B., 164 AD2d 838 ; Matter of Erin G., 139 AD2d 737 .) Concur—Ross, J. | 2 | 1990–2005 |
In re Sheena D.
green
1 sentence2018R. until their respective 18th birthdays ( Matter of Sheena D. , 8 NY3d 136, 141-142 ). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Miracle v. New York State Department of Motor Vehicles
green
2 sentences2006Matter of Shaun X., 228 AD2d 730 [1996]; Matter of Christopher O., 211 AD2d 980 [1995]; Matter of Esther CC., 194 AD2d 949 [1993]), they should not be followed as the clear language of section 1056 (4) does not authorize orders of protection until a child’s 18th birthday against one “related by blood or marriage” (see Matter of Cayuga County Health & Human Servs. v Dennis E.M., supra; Matter of Gabriel A., supra at 483-484). 2006Matter of Shaun X., 228 AD2d 730 [1996]; Matter of Christopher O., 211 AD2d 980 [1995]; Matter of Esther CC., 194 AD2d 949 [1993]), they should not be followed as the clear language of section 1056 (4) does not authorize orders of protection until a child’s 18th birthday against one “related by blood or marriage” (see Matter of Cayuga County Health & Human Servs. v Dennis E.M., supra; Matter of Gabriel A., supra at 483-484). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.