Matter of Jaielly R.H. (Kimberly v.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Jaielly R.H. (Kimberly v.

132 A.D.3d 993, 19 N.Y.S.3d 68

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedOctober 28, 2015

Docket2014-11142

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 132 A.D.3d 993 (Matter of Jaielly R.H. (Kimberly v.) 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.

Bluebook

Matter of Jaielly R.H. (Kimberly v., 132 A.D.3d 993, 19 N.Y.S.3d 68 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeals from two orders of the Family Court, Kings County (Daniel Turbow, J.), both dated December 1, 2014. The orders, after a fact-finding hearing, granted the parents’ respective motions, in effect, to dismiss the petition insofar as asserted against each of them pursuant to Family Court Act § 1051 (c).

Ordered that the orders are reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the petition is reinstated, a finding of neglect is made against each parent, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Kings County, for a dispositional hearing and orders of disposition thereafter.

The Family Court erred in granting the parents’ respective motions to dismiss the neglect petition insofar as asserted against each of them. The petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that, in executing a search warrant at the father’s apartment, the police found illegal drugs, including multiple individual packages of crack cocaine and heroin and a large quantity of marijuana, in various locations throughout the home within the reach of the approximately three-year-old child. As the Family Court correctly found, the hearing evidence further established that the mother knew or should have known about the accessible drugs in the home despite her residence elsewhere, inasmuch as she was undisputedly present there virtually on a daily basis. The parents’ conduct in placing the child in proximity to readily accessible drugs “posed an imminent danger to the [child’s] physical, mental, and emotional well-being” (Matter of Evan E. [Lasheen E.], 95 AD3d 1114, 1115 [2012]; see Matter of Paul J., 6 AD3d 709, 710 [2004]; Matter of Michael R., 309 AD2d 590, 590-591 [2003]). Thus, the evidence was sufficient to support a finding of neglect against each parent (see Matter of Jared M. [Ernesto C.J, 99 AD3d 474, 474-475 [2012]; Matter of Paige AA. [Anthony AA.], 85 AD3d 1213, 1216 [2011]; Matter of Taliya G. [Jeannie M.], 67 AD3d 546, 547 [2009]; Matter of Andrew DeJ. R., 30 AD3d 238 [2006]; Matter of Myra P., 251 AD2d 668, 669 [1998]).

The remaining contentions of the petitioner and the attorney *994 for the child are not properly before this Court (see CPLR 5501 [a] [3]).

Rivera, J.P., Leventhal, Austin and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Appeals from two orders of the Family Court, Kings County (Daniel Turbow, J.), both dated December 1, 2014. The orders, after a fact-finding hearing, granted the parents’ respective motions, in effect, to dismiss the petition insofar as asserted against each of them pursuant to Family Court Act § 1051 (c).

Ordered that the orders are reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the petition is reinstated, a finding of neglect is made against each parent, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Kings County, for a dispositional hearing and orders of disposition thereafter.

The Family Court erred in granting the parents’ respective motions to dismiss the neglect petition insofar as asserted against each of them. The petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that, in executing a search warrant at the father’s apartment, the police found illegal drugs, including multiple individual packages of crack cocaine and heroin and a large quantity of marijuana, in various locations throughout the home within the reach of the approximately three-year-old child. As the Family Court correctly found, the hearing evidence further established that the mother knew or should have known about the accessible drugs in the home despite her residence elsewhere, inasmuch as she was undisputedly present there virtually on a daily basis. The parents’ conduct in placing the child in proximity to readily accessible drugs “posed an imminent danger to the [child’s] physical, mental, and emotional well-being” (Matter of Evan E. [Lasheen E.], 95 AD3d 1114, 1115 [2012]; see Matter of Paul J., 6 AD3d 709, 710 [2004]; Matter of Michael R., 309 AD2d 590, 590-591 [2003]). Thus, the evidence was sufficient to support a finding of neglect against each parent (see Matter of Jared M. [Ernesto C.J, 99 AD3d 474, 474-475 [2012]; Matter of Paige AA. [Anthony AA.], 85 AD3d 1213, 1216 [2011]; Matter of Taliya G. [Jeannie M.], 67 AD3d 546, 547 [2009]; Matter of Andrew DeJ. R., 30 AD3d 238 [2006]; Matter of Myra P., 251 AD2d 668, 669 [1998]).

The remaining contentions of the petitioner and the attorney *994 for the child are not properly before this Court (see CPLR 5501 [a] [3]).

Rivera, J.P., Leventhal, Austin and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

132 A.D.3d 993, 19 N.Y.S.3d 68, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-jaielly-rh-kimberly-v-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack