555 New York opinions name it 11 courts 1936–2026 73 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 Carpeah N.green2 sentences2016The evidence adduced at the hearing was sufficient to establish that the return of the child to the mother would present an imminent risk to the child’s emotional, mental, and physical health (see Family Ct Act § 1028 [a]; Matter of Kyle D. [Everton D.], 134 AD3d 1109, 1109 [2015]; Matter of Madeline A. [Elizabeth M.], 87 AD3d 1132 [2011]; Matter of Elijah O. [Marilyn O.], 77 AD3d 836, 837 [2010]). 2016The evidence adduced at the hearing was sufficient to establish that the return of the child to the mother would present an imminent risk to the child’s emotional, mental, and physical health (see Family Ct Act § 1028 [a]; Matter of Kyle D. [Everton D.], 134 AD3d 1109, 1109 [2015]; Matter of Madeline A. [Elizabeth M.], 87 AD3d 1132 [2011]; Matter of Elijah O. [Marilyn O.], 77 AD3d 836, 837 [2010]). | 5 | 6 |
Hagopian v. Hagopiangreen2 sentences2016The evidence adduced at the hearing established, by a fair preponderance of the evidence, that the mother committed acts against the father which constituted the family offense of harassment in the second degree (see Penal Law § 240.26 [1]; Family Ct Act § 812 [1]; Matter of Smith v Amedee, 101 AD3d 1033, 1033 [2012]), warranting the issuance of an order of protection against the mother (see Matter of Parameswar v Parameswar, 109 AD3d at 474; Matter of Hagopian v Hagopian, 66 AD3d 1021, 1022 [2009]; see also Matter of Cabeza v Cabeza, 107 AD3d 793, 794 [2013]; Matter of Winfield v Gammons, 105 2015Here, contrary to the appellant’s contention, the evidence adduced at the hearing established, by a fair preponderance of the evidence, that he committed acts which constituted the family offense of harassment in the second degree, warranting the issuance of an order of protection (see Family Ct Act §§ 812, 832; Penal Law § 240.26; Matter of Parameswar v Parameswar, 109 AD3d 473, 474 [2013]; Matter of Hagopian v Hagopian, 66 AD3d 1021, 1022 [2009]). | 4 | 5 |
Parameswar v. Parameswargreen2 sentences2016The evidence adduced at the hearing established, by a fair preponderance of the evidence, that the mother committed acts against the father which constituted the family offense of harassment in the second degree (see Penal Law § 240.26 [1]; Family Ct Act § 812 [1]; Matter of Smith v Amedee, 101 AD3d 1033, 1033 [2012]), warranting the issuance of an order of protection against the mother (see Matter of Parameswar v Parameswar, 109 AD3d at 474; Matter of Hagopian v Hagopian, 66 AD3d 1021, 1022 [2009]; see also Matter of Cabeza v Cabeza, 107 AD3d 793, 794 [2013]; Matter of Winfield v Gammons, 105 2015Here, contrary to the appellant’s contention, the evidence adduced at the hearing established, by a fair preponderance of the evidence, that he committed acts which constituted the family offense of harassment in the second degree, warranting the issuance of an order of protection (see Family Ct Act §§ 812, 832; Penal Law § 240.26; Matter of Parameswar v Parameswar, 109 AD3d 473, 474 [2013]; Matter of Hagopian v Hagopian, 66 AD3d 1021, 1022 [2009]). | 4 | 4 |
Sblendorio v. D'Agostinogreen2 sentences2012The evidence adduced at the hearing established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the appellant engaged in acts which would constitute the offenses of menacing in the third degree, disorderly conduct, and harassment in the second degree (see Family Ct Act § 812 [1]; § 832; Penal Law §§ 120.15, 240.20, 240.26 [1]; Matter of Melissa K. v Brian K., 72 AD3d 1129 [2010]; Matter of Sblendorio v D’Agostino, 60 AD3d 773 [2009]; Matter of Miriam M. v Warren M., 51 AD3d 581 [2008]; Matter of Sinclair v Batista-Mall, 50 AD3d 1044 [2008]). 2012The evidence adduced at the hearing established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the appellant engaged in acts which would constitute the offenses of menacing in the third degree, disorderly conduct, and harassment in the second degree (see Family Ct Act § 812 [1]; § 832; Penal Law §§ 120.15, 240.20, 240.26 [1]; Matter of Melissa K. v Brian K., 72 AD3d 1129 [2010]; Matter of Sblendorio v D’Agostino, 60 AD3d 773 [2009]; Matter of Miriam M. v Warren M., 51 AD3d 581 [2008]; Matter of Sinclair v Batista-Mall, 50 AD3d 1044 [2008]). | 3 | 5 |
Smith v. Amedeegreen2 sentences2016Here, the evidence adduced at the hearing established, by a fair preponderance of the evidence, that the appellant committed acts against the petitioner which constituted the family offenses of assault in the third degree, harassment in the second degree, and criminal obstruction of breathing (see Penal Law §§ 120.00 [1]; 121.11 [a]; 240.26 [1]; Family Ct Act § 812 [1]), warranting the issuance of an order of protection against him (see Matter of Niyazova v Shimunov, 134 AD3d at 1123; Matter of Smith v Amedee, 101 AD3d 1033 [2012]). 2016The evidence adduced at the hearing established, by a fair preponderance of the evidence, that the mother committed acts against the father which constituted the family offense of harassment in the second degree (see Penal Law § 240.26 [1]; Family Ct Act § 812 [1]; Matter of Smith v Amedee, 101 AD3d 1033, 1033 [2012]), warranting the issuance of an order of protection against the mother (see Matter of Parameswar v Parameswar, 109 AD3d at 474; Matter of Hagopian v Hagopian, 66 AD3d 1021, 1022 [2009]; see also Matter of Cabeza v Cabeza, 107 AD3d 793, 794 [2013]; Matter of Winfield v Gammons, 105 | 3 | 4 |
People v. Beneventogreen2 sentences2013Defendant failed to establish that trial counsel’s failure to conduct a further investigation into the reliability of the information contained in the letters or to use the letters in his defense lacked a strategic basis (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]). 2004The record, including the evidence adduced at the hearing on defendant’s motion to vacate the judgment, establishes that defendant received effective assistance of counsel (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 713-714 [1998]; People v Hobot, 84 NY2d 1021, 1024 [1995]; see also Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668 [1984]). | 3 | 4 |
| People v. McArthurgreen | 3 | 3 |
| Kranock v. Ranierigreen | 3 | 3 |
| Bauer v. New York State Office of Children & Family Servicesgreen | 3 | 3 |
Miranda v. Arizonagreen2 sentences2025The evidence adduced at the hearing demonstrated that the defendant was properly administered Miranda warnings ( see Miranda v Arizona , 384 US 436, 444 ) and, thereafter, knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his Miranda rights ( see People v Mateo , 2 NY3d 383, 413 ; People v Molina , 188 AD3d 920, 921 ; People v Williams , 191 AD2d 526, 527 ). 2025The evidence adduced at the hearing demonstrated that the defendant was properly administered Miranda warnings ( see Miranda v Arizona , 384 US 436, 444) and, thereafter, knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his Miranda rights ( see People v Mateo , 2 NY3d 383, 413; People v Molina , 188 AD3d 920, 921; People v Williams , 191 AD2d 526, 527). | 2 | 4 |
In re Faith J.green2 sentences2015Moreover, the evidence adduced at the hearing established that the subject child was in imminent danger of becoming physically, mentally, or emotionally impaired as a result of the mother’s mental illness (see Matter of Negus T. [Fayme B.], 123 AD3d 836 [2014]; Matter of Amber Gold J. [Vanessa J.], 88 AD3d 1001 [2011]; Matter of Faith J., 47 AD3d 630 [2008]). 2014Contrary 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 [2004]; | 2 | 4 |
People v. McRaygreen2 sentences2013These facts would lead a reasonable person who possessed the same expertise as the officer to conclude that a crime was being committed (see People v McRay, 51 NY2d 594, 598 [1980]; People v Vega, 56 AD3d 578 , 579 [2008]; People v Powell, 32 AD3d 544, 545 [2006]; People v Cabot, 88 AD2d 556, 557 [1982]). 1989This conclusion, which must be construed as a finding that there was probable cause to arrest defendant at the time he was transported to the Port Authority Police Station, was not disturbed by the Appellate Division, is supported by the evidence adduced at the hearing and is, accordingly, not subject to further review by this court (see, People v McRay, 51 NY2d 594, 601 ). | 2 | 4 |
| People v. Gonzalezgreen | 2 | 4 |
| Miloslau v. Miloslaugreen | 2 | 3 |
| In re Jessica DiB.green | 2 | 3 |
| People v. Chippgreen | 2 | 3 |
| People v. Washingtongreen | 2 | 3 |
| People v. Williamsgreen | 2 | 3 |
| In re Mashlai D.M.green | 2 | 3 |
| Matter of Fantau v. Fantaugreen | 2 | 3 |
| Kurzon v. Kurzongreen | 2 | 3 |
| Richardson v. Richardsongreen | 2 | 3 |
| Cockrell v. Burkegreen | 2 | 3 |
| People v. Manninggreen | 2 | 3 |
| Berenhaus v. Wardgreen | 2 | 3 |
| People v. Robinsongreen | 2 | 3 |
People v. De Bourgreen2 sentences2016That officer informed defendant that he was being arrested for possession of stolen property, whereupon defendant stated, "I know the GPSs are stolen" and "I'm holding them for someone that I am meeting." </p> <p>Based on the evidence adduced at the hearing, we find, contrary to defendant's contention, <font color="FF0000">[*2]</font>that the Criminal Court properly determined that the first police officer had an "objective credible reason" (<i>People v De Bour</i>, 40 NY2d 210, 223 [1976]) to exercise his "fairly broad authority" (<i>People v Hollman</i>, 79 NY2d 181, 190 [1992]) to approach 2014However, contrary to the defendant’s contention, the evidence adduced at the hearing established that the police officers had reasonable suspicion to stop and detain him, and the suppres *1266 sion motion was properly denied on that ground (see People v Brannon, 16 NY3d 596, 601-602 [2011]; People v De Bour, 40 NY2d 210 [1976]; People v Shuler, 98 AD3d 695 [2012]; People v Davenport, 92 AD3d 689 [2012]). | 1 | 6 |
Matter of Hickey v. New York State Dept. of Motor Vehs.green2 sentences2019The evidence adduced at the hearing, including the testimony of the arresting officer, the officer's written report of the petitioner's refusal to submit to a chemical test, and the alcohol/drug report authorization form, demonstrated that after the petitioner's arrest, the officer gave the petitioner sufficient warning of the consequences of refusing to submit to a chemical test, and that the petitioner refused the officer's request to submit to the chemical test ( see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194[2][c]; Matter of Singer v Egan , 170 AD3d 732 , 733; Matter of Hickey v New York State Dept. o 2019The evidence adduced at the hearing, including the testimony of the arresting police officer, the officer's written report of the petitioner's refusal to submit to a chemical test, and the alcohol/drug report authorization form, demonstrated that after the petitioner's arrest, the officer gave the petitioner sufficient warning of the consequences of refusing to submit to a chemical test, and that the petitioner refused the officer's request to submit to the chemical test ( see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194[2][c]; Matter of Marden v New York State Dept. of Motor Vehs. , 162 AD3d 770 , 771; Mat | 1 | 6 |
Nicholson v. Scoppettagreen2 sentences2015The evidence adduced at the hearing demonstrated that, if the children Nasir A. and Tajuddin A. were to remain in the custody of the appellant pending the outcome of the proceedings, there would be imminent risk to their life or health, and the risk could not be mitigated by reasonable efforts short of removal (see Nicholson v Scoppetta, 3 NY3d 357, 378 [2004]; Matter of Nowell M. [Katherine M.], 115 AD3d 746 , 747 [2014]). 2015Moreover, the evidence adduced at the hearing demonstrated that, during the pendency of these proceedings, the imminent risk to the children’s lives or health could not be mitigated by reasonable efforts short of removal from the respondents’ care and custody (see Nicholson v Scoppetta, 3 NY3d at 378 ). | 1 | 5 |
D'Alessandro v. New York City Transit Authoritygreen2 sentences2017Auth., 83 NY2d at 893 ; Matter of Barrios v City of New York, 300 AD2d at 481 ). 2009Auth., 83 NY2d 891, 893 [1994]), we recount the relevant evidence from the hearing in this case. | 1 | 4 |
Fashion Page, Ltd. v. Zurich Insurancegreen2 sentences2010Co., 50 NY2d 265, 271-272 [1980]; Aguilera v Pistilli Constr. & Dev. 2001Co., 50 NY2d 265 ; Eastman Kodak Co. v Miller & Miller Consulting Actuaries, 195 AD2d 591 ; Peck v Church, 160 AD2d 854 ). | 1 | 4 |
In re Mahergreen2 sentences2009The evidence adduced at the hearing established that May Far C. effectuated a plan for the management of her affairs and possessed sufficient resources to protect her well being, thus obviating the need for a guardian over her person or property (see Mental Hygiene Law § 81.02; Matter of Crump [Parthe], 230 AD2d 850 [1996]; Matter of O'Hear [Rodriquez], 219 AD2d 720 [1995]; Matter of Maher, 207 AD2d 133 [1994]). 2006The evidence adduced at the hearing established that Isadora R. effectuated a plan for the management of her affairs and possessed sufficient resources to protect her well being, thus obviating the need for a guardian over her person or property (see Mental Hygiene Law § 81.02; Matter of Crump, 230 AD2d 850 [1996]; Matter of O’Hear, 219 AD2d 720 [1995]; Matter of Maher, 207 AD2d 133 [1994]). | 1 | 4 |
| Matter of O'Neil v. O'Neilgreen | 1 | 3 |
| Matter of Clarke v. Clarkegreen | 1 | 3 |
| Rubackin v. Rubackingreen | 1 | 3 |
| Riley v. Sullivangreen | 1 | 3 |
| Mistretta v. Mistrettagreen | 1 | 3 |
| Matter of Kiani v. Kianigreen | 1 | 3 |
| People v. Bigelowgreen | 1 | 3 |
| Merola v. Merolagreen | 1 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Robinson v. Swarts
green
2 sentences2016The evidence adduced at the hearing, including the testimony of two police officers and their written report, demonstrated that the police had reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner had been driving in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192, that the police lawfully arrested the petitioner, that after the petitioner’s arrest and at the hospital the police gave the petitioner sufficient warning of the consequences of refusing to submit to a chemical test, and that the petitioner refused the officer’s request to submit to the chemical test three times (see Vehicle and Traffic Law 2014Here, the evidence adduced at the hearing demonstrated that the police gave the petitioner sufficient warning of the consequences of refusing to submit to a chemical test (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194 [2] [c] [3]; Matter of Baldwin v Fiala, 102 AD3d 960 [2013]; Matter of Robinson v Swarts, 82 AD3d 986 [2011]). | 7 | 2012–2016 |
In re Lawrence Clinton S.
green
2 sentences2001A suspended judgment may be revoked if the Family Court finds that a preponderance of the evidence adduced at a violation hearing establishes noncompliance with a condition of that judgment (see, Matter of Alka H., 278 AD2d 326 ; Matter of A. Children, 255 AD2d 510 ; Matter of Jennifer VV., 241 AD2d 622 ; Matter of Jennifer T., 224 AD2d 843 ; Matter of Joshua Justin T., 208 AD2d 469 ; Matter of Israel R., 200 AD2d 498 ; Matter of Grace Q., 200 AD2d 894 ; Matter of Lawrence Clinton S., 186 AD2d 808 ; Matter of Gerald M., 112 AD2d 6 ). 2000A suspended judgment may be revoked if the court finds that a preponderance of the evidence adduced at a violation hearing establishes noncompliance with a condition of that judgment (see, Matter of Jennifer W., 241 AD2d 622 ; Matter of Jennifer T., 224 AD2d 843, 844 ; Matter of Joshua Justin T., 208 AD2d 469 ; Matter of Israel R., 200 AD2d 498, 499 ; Matter of Grace Q., 200 AD2d 894, 895 ; Matter of Lawrence Clinton S., 186 AD2d 808, 809 ; Matter of Gerald M., 112 AD2d 6 ). | 7 | 1994–2001 |
People v. Fuller
green
2 sentences2001A suspended judgment may be revoked if the Family Court finds that a preponderance of the evidence adduced at a violation hearing establishes noncompliance with a condition of that judgment (see, Matter of Alka H., 278 AD2d 326 ; Matter of A. Children, 255 AD2d 510 ; Matter of Jennifer VV., 241 AD2d 622 ; Matter of Jennifer T., 224 AD2d 843 ; Matter of Joshua Justin T., 208 AD2d 469 ; Matter of Israel R., 200 AD2d 498 ; Matter of Grace Q., 200 AD2d 894 ; Matter of Lawrence Clinton S., 186 AD2d 808 ; Matter of Gerald M., 112 AD2d 6 ). 2000A suspended judgment may be revoked if the court finds that a preponderance of the evidence adduced at a violation hearing establishes noncompliance with a condition of that judgment (see, Matter of Jennifer W., 241 AD2d 622 ; Matter of Jennifer T., 224 AD2d 843, 844 ; Matter of Joshua Justin T., 208 AD2d 469 ; Matter of Israel R., 200 AD2d 498, 499 ; Matter of Grace Q., 200 AD2d 894, 895 ; Matter of Lawrence Clinton S., 186 AD2d 808, 809 ; Matter of Gerald M., 112 AD2d 6 ). | 7 | 1994–2001 |
Brescia v. Fitts
green
2 sentences2009Contrary to the father’s contention on appeal, the evidence adduced at the hearing provided a sufficient factual basis for the upward modification of his child support obligation (see Matter of Brescia v Fitts, 56 NY2d 132 [1982]; Matter of Boden v Boden, 42 NY2d 210 [1977]). 1997Contrary to the father’s contentions, the evidence adduced at the hearing provided sufficient factual basis for the upward modification of his child support obligation (see, Matter of Brescia v Fitts, 56 NY2d 132 ; Matter of Harris v Harris, 229 AD2d 439 ; Matter of Lafosse v Ivsin, 214 AD2d 569 ). | 6 | 1985–2009 |
In re Gerald M.
green
2 sentences2001A suspended judgment may be revoked if the Family Court finds that a preponderance of the evidence adduced at a violation hearing establishes noncompliance with a condition of that judgment (see, Matter of Alka H., 278 AD2d 326 ; Matter of A. Children, 255 AD2d 510 ; Matter of Jennifer VV., 241 AD2d 622 ; Matter of Jennifer T., 224 AD2d 843 ; Matter of Joshua Justin T., 208 AD2d 469 ; Matter of Israel R., 200 AD2d 498 ; Matter of Grace Q., 200 AD2d 894 ; Matter of Lawrence Clinton S., 186 AD2d 808 ; Matter of Gerald M., 112 AD2d 6 ). 2000A suspended judgment may be revoked if the court finds that a preponderance of the evidence adduced at a violation hearing establishes noncompliance with a condition of that judgment (see, Matter of Jennifer W., 241 AD2d 622 ; Matter of Jennifer T., 224 AD2d 843, 844 ; Matter of Joshua Justin T., 208 AD2d 469 ; Matter of Israel R., 200 AD2d 498, 499 ; Matter of Grace Q., 200 AD2d 894, 895 ; Matter of Lawrence Clinton S., 186 AD2d 808, 809 ; Matter of Gerald M., 112 AD2d 6 ). | 6 | 1998–2001 |
In re Grace Q.
green
2 sentences2001A suspended judgment may be revoked if the Family Court finds that a preponderance of the evidence adduced at a violation hearing establishes noncompliance with a condition of that judgment (see, Matter of Alka H., 278 AD2d 326 ; Matter of A. Children, 255 AD2d 510 ; Matter of Jennifer VV., 241 AD2d 622 ; Matter of Jennifer T., 224 AD2d 843 ; Matter of Joshua Justin T., 208 AD2d 469 ; Matter of Israel R., 200 AD2d 498 ; Matter of Grace Q., 200 AD2d 894 ; Matter of Lawrence Clinton S., 186 AD2d 808 ; Matter of Gerald M., 112 AD2d 6 ). 2000A suspended judgment may be revoked if the court finds that a preponderance of the evidence adduced at a violation hearing establishes noncompliance with a condition of that judgment (see, Matter of Jennifer W., 241 AD2d 622 ; Matter of Jennifer T., 224 AD2d 843, 844 ; Matter of Joshua Justin T., 208 AD2d 469 ; Matter of Israel R., 200 AD2d 498, 499 ; Matter of Grace Q., 200 AD2d 894, 895 ; Matter of Lawrence Clinton S., 186 AD2d 808, 809 ; Matter of Gerald M., 112 AD2d 6 ). | 6 | 1998–2001 |
In re Joshua Justin T.
green
2 sentences2001A suspended judgment may be revoked if the Family Court finds that a preponderance of the evidence adduced at a violation hearing establishes noncompliance with a condition of that judgment (see, Matter of Alka H., 278 AD2d 326 ; Matter of A. Children, 255 AD2d 510 ; Matter of Jennifer VV., 241 AD2d 622 ; Matter of Jennifer T., 224 AD2d 843 ; Matter of Joshua Justin T., 208 AD2d 469 ; Matter of Israel R., 200 AD2d 498 ; Matter of Grace Q., 200 AD2d 894 ; Matter of Lawrence Clinton S., 186 AD2d 808 ; Matter of Gerald M., 112 AD2d 6 ). 2000A suspended judgment may be revoked if the court finds that a preponderance of the evidence adduced at a violation hearing establishes noncompliance with a condition of that judgment (see, Matter of Jennifer W., 241 AD2d 622 ; Matter of Jennifer T., 224 AD2d 843, 844 ; Matter of Joshua Justin T., 208 AD2d 469 ; Matter of Israel R., 200 AD2d 498, 499 ; Matter of Grace Q., 200 AD2d 894, 895 ; Matter of Lawrence Clinton S., 186 AD2d 808, 809 ; Matter of Gerald M., 112 AD2d 6 ). | 6 | 1998–2001 |
In re Jennifer T.
green
2 sentences2001A suspended judgment may be revoked if the Family Court finds that a preponderance of the evidence adduced at a violation hearing establishes noncompliance with a condition of that judgment (see, Matter of Alka H., 278 AD2d 326 ; Matter of A. Children, 255 AD2d 510 ; Matter of Jennifer VV., 241 AD2d 622 ; Matter of Jennifer T., 224 AD2d 843 ; Matter of Joshua Justin T., 208 AD2d 469 ; Matter of Israel R., 200 AD2d 498 ; Matter of Grace Q., 200 AD2d 894 ; Matter of Lawrence Clinton S., 186 AD2d 808 ; Matter of Gerald M., 112 AD2d 6 ). 2000A suspended judgment may be revoked if the court finds that a preponderance of the evidence adduced at a violation hearing establishes noncompliance with a condition of that judgment (see, Matter of Jennifer W., 241 AD2d 622 ; Matter of Jennifer T., 224 AD2d 843, 844 ; Matter of Joshua Justin T., 208 AD2d 469 ; Matter of Israel R., 200 AD2d 498, 499 ; Matter of Grace Q., 200 AD2d 894, 895 ; Matter of Lawrence Clinton S., 186 AD2d 808, 809 ; Matter of Gerald M., 112 AD2d 6 ). | 6 | 1998–2001 |
People v. Glover
green
2 sentences2001A suspended judgment may be revoked if the Family Court finds that a preponderance of the evidence adduced at a violation hearing establishes noncompliance with a condition of that judgment (see, Matter of Alka H., 278 AD2d 326 ; Matter of A. Children, 255 AD2d 510 ; Matter of Jennifer VV., 241 AD2d 622 ; Matter of Jennifer T., 224 AD2d 843 ; Matter of Joshua Justin T., 208 AD2d 469 ; Matter of Israel R., 200 AD2d 498 ; Matter of Grace Q., 200 AD2d 894 ; Matter of Lawrence Clinton S., 186 AD2d 808 ; Matter of Gerald M., 112 AD2d 6 ). 2000A suspended judgment may be revoked if the court finds that a preponderance of the evidence adduced at a violation hearing establishes noncompliance with a condition of that judgment (see, Matter of Jennifer W., 241 AD2d 622 ; Matter of Jennifer T., 224 AD2d 843, 844 ; Matter of Joshua Justin T., 208 AD2d 469 ; Matter of Israel R., 200 AD2d 498, 499 ; Matter of Grace Q., 200 AD2d 894, 895 ; Matter of Lawrence Clinton S., 186 AD2d 808, 809 ; Matter of Gerald M., 112 AD2d 6 ). | 6 | 1998–2001 |
Orange County Department of Social Services ex rel. Jason Paul W. v. Jeanne Z.
neutral
2 sentences2000The evidence presented at the violation hearing supports the Family Court’s determination that the mother failed to satisfy certain conditions of the suspended judgments and that the termination of her parental rights was in the best interests of the children (see, Matter of A., 255 AD2d 510 ; Matter of Torrien Matthew McK., 253 AD2d 522 ; Matter of Orange County Dept. of Social Servs. [Jason Paul W.] v Jeanne Z., 209 AD2d 703 ; Matter of Sharena C., 186 AD2d 249 ; Matter of Lawrence Clinton S., supra, at 809). 1996Further, the evidence adduced at the hearing supports the court’s finding that the putative father did not fulfill his obligations under the suspended judgment (see, Matter of Orange County Dept. of Social Servs. [Jason Paul K.] v Jeanne Z., supra; Matter of Sharena C., supra; Matter of Lawrence Clinton S., supra). | 6 | 1996–2000 |
In re Madeline A.
neutral
2 sentences2016The evidence adduced at the hearing was sufficient to establish that the return of the child to the mother would present an imminent risk to the child’s emotional, mental, and physical health (see Family Ct Act § 1028 [a]; Matter of Kyle D. [Everton D.], 134 AD3d 1109, 1109 [2015]; Matter of Madeline A. [Elizabeth M.], 87 AD3d 1132 [2011]; Matter of Elijah O. [Marilyn O.], 77 AD3d 836, 837 [2010]). 2016The evidence adduced at the hearing was sufficient to establish that the return of the child to the mother would present an imminent risk to the child’s emotional, mental, and physical health (see Family Ct Act § 1028 [a]; Matter of Kyle D. [Everton D.], 134 AD3d 1109, 1109 [2015]; Matter of Madeline A. [Elizabeth M.], 87 AD3d 1132 [2011]; Matter of Elijah O. [Marilyn O.], 77 AD3d 836, 837 [2010]). | 5 | 2012–2016 |
In re Sharena C.
green
2 sentences2000The evidence presented at the violation hearing supports the Family Court’s determination that the mother failed to satisfy certain conditions of the suspended judgments and that the termination of her parental rights was in the best interests of the children (see, Matter of A., 255 AD2d 510 ; Matter of Torrien Matthew McK., 253 AD2d 522 ; Matter of Orange County Dept. of Social Servs. [Jason Paul W.] v Jeanne Z., 209 AD2d 703 ; Matter of Sharena C., 186 AD2d 249 ; Matter of Lawrence Clinton S., supra, at 809). 1998The evidence presented at the hearings supports the Family Court’s findings, inter alia, that the mother failed to satisfy certain conditions of the suspended judgments and that the termination of her parental rights was in the best interests of the children (see, Matter of Orange County Dept. of Social Servs. [Jason Paul W.] v Jeanne Z., 209 AD2d 703 ; Matter of Sharena C., 186 AD2d 249 ; Matter of Lawrence Clinton S., supra). | 5 | 1998–2000 |
Matter of Townes v. Diggs
green
2 sentences2025The court was presented with sharply conflicting accounts by the parties regarding the subject incidents, and the court's determination to credit the petitioner's testimony over the appellant's testimony is supported by the record ( see Matter of Townes v Diggs , 216 AD3d 1104, 1105 ; Matter of Mohammed v Mohammed , 174 AD3d 615 , 615-616). 2024Contrary to the appellant's contentions, a fair preponderance of the evidence adduced at the hearing established that he committed the family offense of harassment in the second degree (Penal Law § 240.26[1], [3]). "'Where, as here, the court was presented with sharply conflicting accounts by the parties regarding the subject events, and chose to credit the testimony of one party over that of the other, its determination will not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record'" ( Matter of Townes v Diggs , 216 AD3d at 1105 , quoting Matter of Mohammed v Mohammed , 174 AD3d 615 , 615-616 | 4 | 2024–2025 |
People v. Ellis
green
2 sentences1996Here, the evidence adduced at the hearing established that the officer properly stopped the vehicle upon observing that it had a broken taillight and made a left turn without signaling (see, People v Ellis, 62 NY2d 393 ; People v Espinal, 209 AD2d 538 ; see also, People v Robinson, 74 NY2d 773 ; People v Pincus, 184 AD2d 666 ). 1991The evidence adduced at the hearing shows that the arrest and subsequent search of the defendant were lawful and proper (see, People v Ellis, 62 NY2d 393 ; People v Copeland, 39 NY2d 986 ; People v Spencer, 130 AD2d 882 ; People v Rodriguez, 122 AD2d 895 ). | 4 | 1990–2022 |
Melissa K. v. Brian K.
green
2 sentences2012The evidence adduced at the hearing established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the appellant engaged in acts which would constitute the offenses of menacing in the third degree, disorderly conduct, and harassment in the second degree (see Family Ct Act § 812 [1]; § 832; Penal Law §§ 120.15, 240.20, 240.26 [1]; Matter of Melissa K. v Brian K., 72 AD3d 1129 [2010]; Matter of Sblendorio v D’Agostino, 60 AD3d 773 [2009]; Matter of Miriam M. v Warren M., 51 AD3d 581 [2008]; Matter of Sinclair v Batista-Mall, 50 AD3d 1044 [2008]). 2012The evidence adduced at the hearing established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the appellant engaged in acts which would constitute the offenses of menacing in the third degree, disorderly conduct, and harassment in the second degree (see Family Ct Act § 812 [1]; § 832; Penal Law §§ 120.15, 240.20, 240.26 [1]; Matter of Melissa K. v Brian K., 72 AD3d 1129 [2010]; Matter of Sblendorio v D’Agostino, 60 AD3d 773 [2009]; Matter of Miriam M. v Warren M., 51 AD3d 581 [2008]; Matter of Sinclair v Batista-Mall, 50 AD3d 1044 [2008]). | 4 | 2012–2013 |
| In re Dayron L. neutral | 4 | 1996–2009 |
| People v. Contes green | 4 | 1987–1997 |
| Messana v. Messana green | 3 | 2015–2021 |
| Matter of Maurice M. (Kinyamu) green | 3 | 2015–2020 |
| Wagner v. Fiala green | 3 | 2014–2018 |
| Sharf v. New York State Department of Motor Vehicles green | 3 | 2011–2017 |
| Chambers v. Mississippi green | 3 | 2017–2017 |
| Dunaway v. New York green | 3 | 1984–2016 |
| In re Darren V. green | 3 | 2009–2014 |
| People v. Martin green | 3 | 2012–2012 |
| Fatima Cab Corp. v. Sharma neutral | 3 | 2011–2012 |
| In re Crump green | 3 | 2004–2009 |
| In re A. Children neutral | 3 | 2000–2002 |
| People v. Boyd green | 3 | 1985–1988 |
| Matter of Derrick D. A. (Anonymous) (Shavonna L. L. D. (Anonymous)) green | 2 | 2016–2026 |
| Matter of Satema C. v. Stephen D. green | 2 | 2025–2025 |
| Matter of Mathena XX. v. Brandon YY. green | 2 | 2025–2025 |
| Matter of Recher v. Velez green | 2 | 2025–2025 |
| Matter of Reyes v. Gill green | 2 | 2025–2025 |
| Matter of Sullivan v. Plotnick neutral | 2 | 2023–2024 |
| Matter of Watson v. Maragh green | 2 | 2023–2023 |
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.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.