matter for a further hearing in New York

1999In order to obtain an extension of foster care placement, the Administration for Children’s Services must establish by a preponderance of the evidence, the continued inability of the parents to care for the child and that continued placement would be in the child’s best interests (see, Matter of Belinda B., 114 AD2d 70, 74 ).

1999In order to obtain an extension of foster care placement, the Administration for Children’s Services must establish by a preponderance of the evidence, the continued inability of the parents to care for the child and that continued placement would be in the child’s best interests (see, Matter of Belinda B., 114 AD2d 70, 74 ).

2024However, because the court erroneously declined to address defendant's application for a downward modification, we remand the matter for a further hearing addressing the application, his current medical condition and living situation ( People v Gillotti , 23 NY3d 841 [2014]; People v Hosear , 134 AD3d 633 [1st Dept 2015]).

2024However, because the court erroneously declined to address defendant's application for a downward modification, we remand the matter for a further hearing addressing the application, his current medical condition and living situation ( People v Gillotti , 23 NY3d 841 [2014]; People v Hosear , 134 AD3d 633 [1st Dept 2015]).THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

2024However, because the court erroneously declined to address defendant's application for a downward modification, we remand the matter for a further hearing addressing the application, his current medical condition and living situation ( People v Gillotti , 23 NY3d 841 [2014]; People v Hosear , 134 AD3d 633 [1st Dept 2015]).

2024However, because the court erroneously declined to address defendant's application for a downward modification, we remand the matter for a further hearing addressing the application, his current medical condition and living situation ( People v Gillotti , 23 NY3d 841 [2014]; People v Hosear , 134 AD3d 633 [1st Dept 2015]).THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

2004Upon review, this Court granted petitioner’s application, finding that the record as a whole contained insufficient information to make a reasoned determination as to the in-service issue and remitted the matter for a further hearing on that point (Matter of Jetter v McCall, 288 AD2d 591 [2001]).

1985Accordingly, we remit the matter for a further hearing on the issue of consequential damages as well as whether or not the taking would have prevented plaintiff from being able to prove that the highest and best use of the property would be either for a gasoline station or drive-in restaurant (see, Mil-Pine Plaza v State of New York, 48 AD2d 532 ).

1979In awarding arrears, if any are to be awarded, the court should be mindful of plaintiff’s financial ability to meet the directives of the court (cf. Kyros v Kyros, 54 AD2d 581 ).

1975Such conclusory statements were amply refuted by petitioner’s presentation before the town board and no purpose would be served by remanding the matter for a further hearing (Matter of North Shore Steak House v Board of Appeals of Inc. Vil. of Thomaston, 30 NY2d 238, 245-246 ).

1972The labor was expended to supply the Town of Islip with a service, namely, street lighting or illumination (see Downey v. Bender, 57 App. Div. 310 ).