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.
7 New York opinions name it 3 courts 2007–2025 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 Darren V.green2 sentences2013Although a separate dispositional hearing is not always required in a proceeding to enforce a suspended judgment where the violation hearing or prior proceedings established that the court was aware of and considered the children’s best interests (see Matter of Carmen C. [Margarita N.], 95 AD3d 1006, 1009 [2012]; Matter of Darren V., 61 AD3d 986, 988 [2009]), this is not such a case (see Matter of Jordan Amir B., 15 AD3d at 479 ). 2013Although a separate dispositional hearing is not always required in a proceeding to enforce a suspended judgment where the violation hearing or prior proceedings established that the court was aware of and considered the children’s best interests (see Matter of Carmen C. [Margarita N.], 95 AD3d 1006, 1009 [2012]; Matter of Darren V., 61 AD3d 986, 988 [2009]), this is not such a case (see Matter of Jordan Amir B., 15 AD3d at 479 ). | 2 | 2 |
In re Orangegreen2 sentences2013Although a separate dispositional hearing is not always required in a proceeding to enforce a suspended judgment where the violation hearing or prior proceedings established that the court was aware of and considered the children’s best interests (see Matter of Carmen C. [Margarita N.], 95 AD3d 1006, 1009 [2012]; Matter of Darren V., 61 AD3d 986, 988 [2009]), this is not such a case (see Matter of Jordan Amir B., 15 AD3d at 479 ). 2013Although a separate dispositional hearing is not always required in a proceeding to enforce a suspended judgment where the violation hearing or prior proceedings established that the court was aware of and considered the children’s best interests (see Matter of Carmen C. [Margarita N.], 95 AD3d 1006, 1009 [2012]; Matter of Darren V., 61 AD3d 986, 988 [2009]), this is not such a case (see Matter of Jordan Amir B., 15 AD3d at 479 ). | 2 | 2 |
In re Nicole Lee B.green2 sentences2007The court concluded that if respondent did not violate the terms and conditions of the order of suspended judgment, Family Court could “dismiss[ ] the permanent neglect petition on that ground, [after determining what] is in [the child’s] best interests” (Matter of Jonathan B., supra, 5 AD3d at 479 [emphasis added]; see also Matter of Nicole Lee B., 256 AD2d 1103 [4th Dept 1998] [matter remanded to Family Court after expiration of a suspended judgment for a hearing to determine the children’s best interests]). 2007The court concluded that if respondent did not violate the terms and conditions of the order of suspended judgment, Family Court could " dismiss[ ] the permanent neglect petition on that ground, [after determining what] is in [the child's] best interests " ( Matter of Jonathan B., supra , 5 AD3d at 479 [emphasis added]; see also Matter of Nicole Lee B. , 256 AD2d 1103 [4th Dept 1998] [matter remanded to Family Court after expiration of a suspended judgment for a hearing to determine the children's best interests]). | 2 | 2 |
In re Jonathan B.green2 sentences2007The court concluded that if respondent did not violate the terms and conditions of the order of suspended judgment, Family Court could “dismiss[ ] the permanent neglect petition on that ground, [after determining what] is in [the child’s] best interests” (Matter of Jonathan B., supra, 5 AD3d at 479 [emphasis added]; see also Matter of Nicole Lee B., 256 AD2d 1103 [4th Dept 1998] [matter remanded to Family Court after expiration of a suspended judgment for a hearing to determine the children’s best interests]). 2007The court concluded that if respondent did not violate the terms and conditions of the order of suspended judgment, Family Court could " dismiss[ ] the permanent neglect petition on that ground, [after determining what] is in [the child's] best interests " ( Matter of Jonathan B., supra , 5 AD3d at 479 [emphasis added]; see also Matter of Nicole Lee B. , 256 AD2d 1103 [4th Dept 1998] [matter remanded to Family Court after expiration of a suspended judgment for a hearing to determine the children's best interests]). | 2 | 2 |
In re Julien Javier F.green2 sentences2025Contrary to the father's contention otherwise, it was not necessary for him to violate all of the terms of a suspended judgment for a violation to be found ( see Matter of Julien Javier F. [Christina F.] , 110 AD3d 562, 563 [1st Dept 2013]). 2025Contrary to the father's contention otherwise, it was not necessary for him to violate all of the terms of a suspended judgment for a violation to be found ( see Matter of Julien Javier F. [Christina F.] , 110 AD3d 562, 563 [1st Dept 2013]). | 1 | 1 |
In re Rodrigo B.green2 sentences2025The father's violation of the suspended judgment shows that he cannot provide a stable home for the child, who has been in foster care since the child was two days old ( see Matter of Aparicio Rodrigo B. , 29 AD3d 351, 352 [1st Dept 2006]). 2025The father's violation of the suspended judgment shows that he cannot provide a stable home for the child, who has been in foster care since the child was two days old ( see Matter of Aparicio Rodrigo B. , 29 AD3d 351, 352 [1st Dept 2006]). | 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 Jordan Amir B.
green
2 sentences2013Although a separate dispositional hearing is not always required in a proceeding to enforce a suspended judgment where the violation hearing or prior proceedings established that the court was aware of and considered the children’s best interests (see Matter of Carmen C. [Margarita N.], 95 AD3d 1006, 1009 [2012]; Matter of Darren V., 61 AD3d 986, 988 [2009]), this is not such a case (see Matter of Jordan Amir B., 15 AD3d at 479 ). 2013Although a separate dispositional hearing is not always required in a proceeding to enforce a suspended judgment where the violation hearing or prior proceedings established that the court was aware of and considered the children’s best interests (see Matter of Carmen C. [Margarita N.], 95 AD3d 1006, 1009 [2012]; Matter of Darren V., 61 AD3d 986, 988 [2009]), this is not such a case (see Matter of Jordan Amir B., 15 AD3d at 479 ). | 2 | 2013–2013 |
In re Gianna W.
green
2 sentences2013It is not necessary for a parent to violate all of the terms of a suspended judgment for a violation to be found (see Matter of Gianna W. [Jessica S.], 96 AD3d 545 [1st Dept 2012] [finding that the failure to secure suitable housing was a material violation and constituted grounds for revocation]). 2013It is not necessary for a parent to violate all of the terms of a suspended judgment for a violation to be found (see Matter of Gianna W. [Jessica S.], 96 AD3d 545 [1st Dept 2012] [finding that the failure to secure suitable housing was a material violation and constituted grounds for revocation]). | 2 | 2013–2013 |
In re Saboor C.
green
2 sentences2007Even if a respondent complies with the dispositional order, however, a court shall not dismiss the petition if it is not in the child’s best interest to do so (Matter of Saboor C., 303 AD2d 1022 [4th Dept 2003] [where although the parties consented that respondent had complied with all the terms of the dispositional order it was nonetheless in the child’s best interest to terminate respondent’s parental rights due to the child’s bond with her foster family]). 2007Even if a respondent complies with the dispositional order, however, a court shall not dismiss the petition if it is not in the child's best interest to do so ( Matter of Saboor C. , 303 AD2d 1022 [4th Dept 2003] [where although the parties consented that respondent had complied with all the terms of the dispositional order it was nonetheless in the child's best interest to terminate respondent's parental rights due to the child's bond with her foster family]). | 2 | 2007–2007 |