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.
19 New York opinions name it 1 courts 1992–2025 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Matter of David P.S. (Grace C.L.)green2 sentences2025The father's refusal to appear constituted a default, and "[i]t is well settled that no appeal lies from an order that is entered upon the default of the appealing party" ( Matter of David P.S. [Grace C.L.] , 222 AD3d 1332, 1332 [4th Dept 2023] [internal quotation marks omitted]). 2025The father's refusal to appear constituted a default, and "[i]t is well settled that no appeal lies from an order that is entered upon the default of the appealing party" ( Matter of David P.S. [Grace C.L.] , 222 AD3d 1332, 1332 [4th Dept 2023] [internal quotation marks omitted]). | 1 | 1 |
In re Makia S.green1 sentence2022The order was thus entered upon the mother's default ( see Matter of Tyrone O. [Lillian G.] , 199 AD3d 1386, 1387 [4th Dept 2021]; Matter of Ramere D. [Biesha D.] , 177 AD3d 1386 , 1386 [4th Dept 2019], lv denied 35 NY3d 904 [2020]; Matter of Makia S. [Catherine S.] , 134 AD3d 1445, 1445-1446 [4th Dept 2015]). | 1 | 1 |
Matter of Tyrone O. (Lillian G.)green1 sentence2022The order was thus entered upon the mother's default ( see Matter of Tyrone O. [Lillian G.] , 199 AD3d 1386, 1387 [4th Dept 2021]; Matter of Ramere D. [Biesha D.] , 177 AD3d 1386 , 1386 [4th Dept 2019], lv denied 35 NY3d 904 [2020]; Matter of Makia S. [Catherine S.] , 134 AD3d 1445, 1445-1446 [4th Dept 2015]). | 1 | 1 |
In re Evan Matthew A.green1 sentence2018The court properly denied the father's motion to vacate, as the record shows that he failed to provide a reasonable excuse for his default in appearing at the fact-finding and dispositional hearing ( see Matter of Evan Matthew A. [Jocelyn Yvette A.] , 91 AD3d 538, 539 [1st Dept 2012]). | 1 | 1 |
Amanda U. v. Howard U.green1 sentence2017Respondent appeals, and we affirm. *897 As applicable herein, “Social Services Law § 384-b (7) (a) defines a permanently neglected child as [one] who is in the care of an authorized agency and whose parent has failed, for a period of more than one year following the date such child came into the care of an authorized agency, substantially and continuously or repeatedly to maintain contact with or plan for the future of the child, although physically and financially able to do so, notwithstanding the agency’s diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship” (Matter of Lan | 1 | 1 |
Cassie v. Cassiegreen1 sentence2015“In a family offense proceeding, the petitioner has the burden of establishing, by a ‘fair preponderance of the evidence,’ that the charged conduct was committed as alleged in the petition” (Matter of Cassie v Cassie, 109 AD3d 337, 340 [2013], quoting Family Ct Act § 832; see Matter of Streat v Streat, 117 AD3d 837, 837 [2014]; Matter of Marte v Caraballo, 116 AD3d 1050, 1050 [2014]; Matter of Testa v Strickland, 99 AD3d 917, 917 [2012]). “ ‘The determination of whether a family offense was committed is a factual issue to be resolved by the hearing court’ ” (Matter of Kaur v Singh, 73 AD3d 117 | 1 | 1 |
Marte v. Caraballogreen2 sentences2015“In a family offense proceeding, the petitioner has the burden of establishing, by a ‘fair preponderance of the evidence,’ that the charged conduct was committed as alleged in the petition” (Matter of Cassie v Cassie, 109 AD3d 337, 340 [2013], quoting Family Ct Act § 832; see Matter of Streat v Streat, 117 AD3d 837, 837 [2014]; Matter of Marte v Caraballo, 116 AD3d 1050, 1050 [2014]; Matter of Testa v Strickland, 99 AD3d 917, 917 [2012]). “ ‘The determination of whether a family offense was committed is a factual issue to be resolved by the hearing court’ ” (Matter of Kaur v Singh, 73 AD3d 117 2015“In a family offense proceeding, the petitioner has the burden of establishing, by a ‘fair preponderance of the evidence,’ that the charged conduct was committed as alleged in the petition” (Matter of Cassie v Cassie, 109 AD3d 337, 340 [2013], quoting Family Ct Act § 832; see Matter of Streat v Streat, 117 AD3d 837, 837 [2014]; Matter of Marte v Caraballo, 116 AD3d 1050, 1050 [2014]; Matter of Testa v Strickland, 99 AD3d 917, 917 [2012]). “ ‘The determination of whether a family offense was committed is a factual issue to be resolved by the hearing court’ ” (Matter of Kaur v Singh, 73 AD3d 117 | 1 | 1 |
Streat v. Streatgreen2 sentences2015“In a family offense proceeding, the petitioner has the burden of establishing, by a ‘fair preponderance of the evidence,’ that the charged conduct was committed as alleged in the petition” (Matter of Cassie v Cassie, 109 AD3d 337, 340 [2013], quoting Family Ct Act § 832; see Matter of Streat v Streat, 117 AD3d 837, 837 [2014]; Matter of Marte v Caraballo, 116 AD3d 1050, 1050 [2014]; Matter of Testa v Strickland, 99 AD3d 917, 917 [2012]). “ ‘The determination of whether a family offense was committed is a factual issue to be resolved by the hearing court’ ” (Matter of Kaur v Singh, 73 AD3d 117 2015“In a family offense proceeding, the petitioner has the burden of establishing, by a ‘fair preponderance of the evidence,’ that the charged conduct was committed as alleged in the petition” (Matter of Cassie v Cassie, 109 AD3d 337, 340 [2013], quoting Family Ct Act § 832; see Matter of Streat v Streat, 117 AD3d 837, 837 [2014]; Matter of Marte v Caraballo, 116 AD3d 1050, 1050 [2014]; Matter of Testa v Strickland, 99 AD3d 917, 917 [2012]). “ ‘The determination of whether a family offense was committed is a factual issue to be resolved by the hearing court’ ” (Matter of Kaur v Singh, 73 AD3d 117 | 1 | 1 |
Creighton v. Whitmoregreen2 sentences2015“In a family offense proceeding, the petitioner has the burden of establishing, by a ‘fair preponderance of the evidence,’ that the charged conduct was committed as alleged in the petition” (Matter of Cassie v Cassie, 109 AD3d 337, 340 [2013], quoting Family Ct Act § 832; see Matter of Streat v Streat, 117 AD3d 837, 837 [2014]; Matter of Marte v Caraballo, 116 AD3d 1050, 1050 [2014]; Matter of Testa v Strickland, 99 AD3d 917, 917 [2012]). “ ‘The determination of whether a family offense was committed is a factual issue to be resolved by the hearing court’ ” (Matter of Kaur v Singh, 73 AD3d 117 2015“In a family offense proceeding, the petitioner has the burden of establishing, by a ‘fair preponderance of the evidence,’ that the charged conduct was committed as alleged in the petition” (Matter of Cassie v Cassie, 109 AD3d 337, 340 [2013], quoting Family Ct Act § 832; see Matter of Streat v Streat, 117 AD3d 837, 837 [2014]; Matter of Marte v Caraballo, 116 AD3d 1050, 1050 [2014]; Matter of Testa v Strickland, 99 AD3d 917, 917 [2012]). “ ‘The determination of whether a family offense was committed is a factual issue to be resolved by the hearing court’ ” (Matter of Kaur v Singh, 73 AD3d 117 | 1 | 1 |
Kaur v. Singhgreen2 sentences2015“In a family offense proceeding, the petitioner has the burden of establishing, by a ‘fair preponderance of the evidence,’ that the charged conduct was committed as alleged in the petition” (Matter of Cassie v Cassie, 109 AD3d 337, 340 [2013], quoting Family Ct Act § 832; see Matter of Streat v Streat, 117 AD3d 837, 837 [2014]; Matter of Marte v Caraballo, 116 AD3d 1050, 1050 [2014]; Matter of Testa v Strickland, 99 AD3d 917, 917 [2012]). “ ‘The determination of whether a family offense was committed is a factual issue to be resolved by the hearing court’ ” (Matter of Kaur v Singh, 73 AD3d 117 2015“In a family offense proceeding, the petitioner has the burden of establishing, by a ‘fair preponderance of the evidence,’ that the charged conduct was committed as alleged in the petition” (Matter of Cassie v Cassie, 109 AD3d 337, 340 [2013], quoting Family Ct Act § 832; see Matter of Streat v Streat, 117 AD3d 837, 837 [2014]; Matter of Marte v Caraballo, 116 AD3d 1050, 1050 [2014]; Matter of Testa v Strickland, 99 AD3d 917, 917 [2012]). “ ‘The determination of whether a family offense was committed is a factual issue to be resolved by the hearing court’ ” (Matter of Kaur v Singh, 73 AD3d 117 | 1 | 1 |
Testa v. Stricklandgreen1 sentence2015“In a family offense proceeding, the petitioner has the burden of establishing, by a ‘fair preponderance of the evidence,’ that the charged conduct was committed as alleged in the petition” (Matter of Cassie v Cassie, 109 AD3d 337, 340 [2013], quoting Family Ct Act § 832; see Matter of Streat v Streat, 117 AD3d 837, 837 [2014]; Matter of Marte v Caraballo, 116 AD3d 1050, 1050 [2014]; Matter of Testa v Strickland, 99 AD3d 917, 917 [2012]). “ ‘The determination of whether a family offense was committed is a factual issue to be resolved by the hearing court’ ” (Matter of Kaur v Singh, 73 AD3d 117 | 1 | 1 |
In re Nicholas S. Westchester county Department of Social Servicesgreen1 sentence2014The Family Court properly denied the motion of the appellant, who was a “person legally responsible for the children]’s care,” to vacate the order of fact-finding and disposition, which was entered upon the appellant’s default in appearing at a fact-finding and dispositional hearing, as he “willfully refused to appear at the hearing” (Family Ct Act § 1042; see Matter of Nicholas S., 46 AD3d 830, 831 [2007]; Matter of W. | 1 | 1 |
McVey v. Barnettgreen1 sentence2013In order to modify an existing court-sanctioned custody or visitation arrangement, “there must be a showing that there has been a change in circumstances such that modification is required to protect the best interests of the child” (Matter of McVey v Barnett, 107 AD3d 808, 808 [2013] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Family Ct Act § 467 [b] [ii]; Matter of Wilson v McGlinchey, 2 NY3d 375, 380 [2004]; Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167 [1982]; Matter of James M. v Kevin M., 99 AD3d 911 [2012]). | 1 | 1 |
Wilson v. McGlincheygreen1 sentence2013In order to modify an existing court-sanctioned custody or visitation arrangement, “there must be a showing that there has been a change in circumstances such that modification is required to protect the best interests of the child” (Matter of McVey v Barnett, 107 AD3d 808, 808 [2013] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Family Ct Act § 467 [b] [ii]; Matter of Wilson v McGlinchey, 2 NY3d 375, 380 [2004]; Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167 [1982]; Matter of James M. v Kevin M., 99 AD3d 911 [2012]). | 1 | 1 |
| Gregory B. v. Gregory F.green | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Matter of Harmony M. E. (Andre C.)
green
1 sentence2023Contrary to the parties' contentions, although review may be had on matters which were the subject of contest in the Family Court ( see CPLR 5511; Matter of Justyn H. [Laverne H.] , 191 AD3d 876 , 876; Matter of Andrew J.U.M. [Jelaine E.M.] , 154 AD3d 758 ; Matter of Harmony M.E. [Andre C.] , 121 AD3d 677, 678 ), the court's failure to adjourn the hearing was not a subject of contest below ( see Matter of Jaydalee P. [Codilee R.] , 156 AD3d 1477, 1477 ; cf. Matter of Andrew J.U.M. [Jelaine E.M.] , 154 AD3d 758 ). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Matter of Andrew J.U.M. (Jelaine E.M.)
green
2 sentences2023Contrary to the parties' contentions, although review may be had on matters which were the subject of contest in the Family Court ( see CPLR 5511; Matter of Justyn H. [Laverne H.] , 191 AD3d 876 , 876; Matter of Andrew J.U.M. [Jelaine E.M.] , 154 AD3d 758 ; Matter of Harmony M.E. [Andre C.] , 121 AD3d 677, 678 ), the court's failure to adjourn the hearing was not a subject of contest below ( see Matter of Jaydalee P. [Codilee R.] , 156 AD3d 1477, 1477 ; cf. Matter of Andrew J.U.M. [Jelaine E.M.] , 154 AD3d 758 ). 2023Contrary to the parties' contentions, although review may be had on matters which were the subject of contest in the Family Court ( see CPLR 5511; Matter of Justyn H. [Laverne H.] , 191 AD3d 876 , 876; Matter of Andrew J.U.M. [Jelaine E.M.] , 154 AD3d 758 ; Matter of Harmony M.E. [Andre C.] , 121 AD3d 677, 678 ), the court's failure to adjourn the hearing was not a subject of contest below ( see Matter of Jaydalee P. [Codilee R.] , 156 AD3d 1477, 1477 ; cf. Matter of Andrew J.U.M. [Jelaine E.M.] , 154 AD3d 758 ). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Matter of Jaydalee P. (Codilee R.)
green
1 sentence2023Contrary to the parties' contentions, although review may be had on matters which were the subject of contest in the Family Court ( see CPLR 5511; Matter of Justyn H. [Laverne H.] , 191 AD3d 876 , 876; Matter of Andrew J.U.M. [Jelaine E.M.] , 154 AD3d 758 ; Matter of Harmony M.E. [Andre C.] , 121 AD3d 677, 678 ), the court's failure to adjourn the hearing was not a subject of contest below ( see Matter of Jaydalee P. [Codilee R.] , 156 AD3d 1477, 1477 ; cf. Matter of Andrew J.U.M. [Jelaine E.M.] , 154 AD3d 758 ). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Matter of Genao-Archibald v. Archibald
neutral
1 sentence2023The appeal by the father from the order of fact-finding and disposition dated August 10, 2021, and the appeals by the mother and the father from the order of fact-finding and disposition dated August 11, 2021, must be dismissed since the orders were issued upon the mother and the father's failure to appear at the fact-finding and dispositional hearing, and no appeal lies from an order made on the default of the appealing party ( see CPLR 5511; Matter of Genao-Archibald v Archibald , 208 AD3d 1185 , 1187). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
In re Mark J.
green
1 sentence2018The court's failure to advise the appellant of his right to remain silent cannot be considered harmless error ( see Matter of Mark J ., 259 AD2d 40, 42-43 ), as the court never advised the appellant of his right to remain silent at any time during the course of this proceeding or the original PINS proceeding. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
In re Amber A.
neutral
1 sentence2018ORDERED that the appeal from so much of the order of fact-finding and disposition as released the children to the custody of the mother with supervision by the petitioner until October 17, 2017, is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements, as that portion of the order expired by its own terms ( see Matter of Amber A. [Thomas E.] , 108 AD3d 664 ); and it is further, ORDERED that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
In re W. Children
neutral
1 sentence2014Children, 256 AD2d 412 , 413 [1998]). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
James M. v. Kevin M.
green
1 sentence2013In order to modify an existing court-sanctioned custody or visitation arrangement, “there must be a showing that there has been a change in circumstances such that modification is required to protect the best interests of the child” (Matter of McVey v Barnett, 107 AD3d 808, 808 [2013] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Family Ct Act § 467 [b] [ii]; Matter of Wilson v McGlinchey, 2 NY3d 375, 380 [2004]; Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167 [1982]; Matter of James M. v Kevin M., 99 AD3d 911 [2012]). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Eschbach v. Eschbach
green
1 sentence2013In order to modify an existing court-sanctioned custody or visitation arrangement, “there must be a showing that there has been a change in circumstances such that modification is required to protect the best interests of the child” (Matter of McVey v Barnett, 107 AD3d 808, 808 [2013] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Family Ct Act § 467 [b] [ii]; Matter of Wilson v McGlinchey, 2 NY3d 375, 380 [2004]; Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167 [1982]; Matter of James M. v Kevin M., 99 AD3d 911 [2012]). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
In re Zabrina M.
green
1 sentence2010The father failed to meet his burden of providing a reasonable excuse for his failure to appear and a meritorious defense to the petition (see Matter of Tiara B. [appeal No. 2], 64 AD3d 1181 , 1182 [2009]; Matter of Zabrina M., 17 AD3d 1132 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 710 [2005]). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
In re Tiara B.
green
1 sentence2010The father failed to meet his burden of providing a reasonable excuse for his failure to appear and a meritorious defense to the petition (see Matter of Tiara B. [appeal No. 2], 64 AD3d 1181 , 1182 [2009]; Matter of Zabrina M., 17 AD3d 1132 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 710 [2005]). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
In re Alexis G.
green
1 sentence2009The motion was properly denied on the additional ground that respondent failed to demonstrate a meritorious defense to the neglect petition in that she provided no evidence that she was drug-free almost four years after her child was removed due to her drug use (see Matter of Tanya Alexis G., 273 AD2d 19 [2000]). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
People Ex Rel. Cusano v. Leone
green
1 sentence2006Cusano v Leone, 43 NY2d 665 , 668 n 2 [1977]; Matter of Jaquan P., 15 AD3d 664 [2005]). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
In re Jaquan P.
neutral
1 sentence2006Cusano v Leone, 43 NY2d 665 , 668 n 2 [1977]; Matter of Jaquan P., 15 AD3d 664 [2005]). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| In re Ashley Marie M. green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
In re Jessica Dee D.
green
1 sentence2004Accordingly, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in denying her motion to vacate her default (see Matter of Helena W., 6 AD3d 541 [2004]; Matter of Jessica Dee D., 6 AD3d 435 [2004]). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
In re Helena W.
green
1 sentence2004Accordingly, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in denying her motion to vacate her default (see Matter of Helena W., 6 AD3d 541 [2004]; Matter of Jessica Dee D., 6 AD3d 435 [2004]). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| In re Vanessa M. green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| In re Mursol B. green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| In re Laticia B. green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| In re Dutchess County Department of Social Services ex rel. Cody M. green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| In re Tesema H. neutral | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| People v. Perkins green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| People v. Gonzalez green | 1 | 1999–1999 |