Matter of Danazah B.D. (Audrey B.)
This text of 125 A.D.3d 964 (Matter of Danazah B.D. (Audrey B.)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
*965 Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (llana Gruebel, J.), dated July 25, 2014. The order, in effect, denied, without a hearing, the mother’s motion for the return of the subject child pursuant to Family Court Act § 1028.
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Kings County, for a hearing pursuant to Family Court Act § 1028 and a new determination of the mother’s motion thereafter.
The Family Court has no discretion to deny, without a hearing, a parent’s application pursuant to Family Court Act § 1028 if the conditions of the statute are satisfied (see Matter of Prince Me. [Wendell Me.], 88 AD3d 885, 886 [2011]; Matter of Kristina R, 21 AD3d 560, 562-563 [2005]; Matter of Cory M., 307 AD2d 1035, 1036 [2003]). Here, since the conditions of the statute were satisfied (see Family Ct Act § 1028), the Family Court erred by, in effect, denying the mother’s motion for return of the subject child pursuant to Family Court Act § 1028 without a hearing (see Matter of Prince Mc. [Wendell Mc.], 88 AD3d at 886; Matter of Cory M., 307 AD2d at 1036).
Accordingly, we remit the matter to the Family Court, Kings County, for a hearing pursuant to Family Court Act § 1028 and a new determination of the mother’s motion thereafter. Skelos, J.P., Balkin, Hall and Maltese, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
125 A.D.3d 964, 1 N.Y.S.3d 865, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-danazah-bd-audrey-b-nyappdiv-2015.