LAW.coLAW.co

In the Matter of Danazah B. D., Also Known as Danazah B. Administration for Childrens Services, Respondent; Audrey B., Appellant

New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division2015-02-25
125 A.D.3d 9641 N.Y.S.3d 865

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion

majority opinion

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.