The Law Lion Logo - AI-powered legal writing assistantThe Law Lion
Home
Features
Pricing
Services
AboutBlogCasesContact
Login
Ask Law Lion AI
  1. Home
  2. >Cases
  3. >Matter of Jewel M. (Crystal v.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Matter of Jewel M. (Crystal v.

238 237·Judge: Friedman, Manzanet-Daniels, Mazzarelli, Sweeny0 citations

Table of Contents

  • Opinions
  • Opinions
  • Matter of Jewel M. (Crystal V.) (2016 NY Slip Op 01125) Matter of Jewel M. (C...
  • THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
  • CLERK

Table of Contents

  • Opinions
  • Opinions
  • Matter of Jewel M. (Crystal V.) (2016 NY Slip Op 01125) Matter of Jewel M. (C...
  • THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
  • CLERK

No summary available for this case.

Opinions

Matter of Jewel M. (Crystal V.) (2016 NY Slip Op 01125)
Matter of Jewel M. (Crystal V.)
2016 NY Slip Op 01125
Decided on February 16, 2016
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided on February 16, 2016
Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, Sweeny, Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

238 237

[*1]In re Jewel M., and Others, Children Under Eighteen Years of Age, etc.,

and

Crystal ., Respondent-Appellant, Administration for Children's Services Petitioner-Respondent.




Steven N. Feinman, White Plains, for appellant.

Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Marta Ross of counsel), for respondent.

Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Amy Hausknecht of counsel), attorney for the children.



Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Stewart H. Weinstein, J.), entered on or about July 15, 2014, to the extent it brings up for review a fact-finding order, same court and Judge, entered on or about January 30, 2014, which found that respondent mother neglected her five children, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from fact-finding order unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the order of disposition.

According the greatest respect to the court's credibility findings, we find that a preponderance of the evidence establishes that the children were neglected since respondent's mental condition placed them at imminent risk of harm (Family Court Act § 1012; Matter of Irene O., 38 NY2d 776 [1975]; Matter of Devin M. [Margaret W.], 119 AD3d 435, 436 [1st Dept 2014]). Respondent's failure to provide adequate education for her school-aged children is another basis for a finding of neglect (Matter of William AA., 24 AD3d 1125 [3d Dept 2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 711 [2006]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: FEBRUARY 16, 2016

CLERK



The Law Lion logoThe Law Lion.

The Law Lion is the only platform combining AI legal writing grounded in real case law with an expert human writing service — serving attorneys, paralegals, and everyday people nationwide.

info@thelawlion.com
Mon–Fri 9am–6pm EST · Rush available
Serving Clients Nationwide

AI Tool

  • → AI Legal Writing Tool
  • → AI Document Drafting
  • → Motion Drafting
  • → Contract Drafting
  • → Legal Research
  • → Case Law Search
  • → Citation Generator
  • → Document Review
  • → Contract Review
  • → For Lawyers

Writing Service

  • → Eviction Defense
  • → Court Documents
  • → Custody & Family
  • → Divorce Documents
  • → Debt & Collections
  • → All Writing Services

Top Guides

  • → Eviction Response Guide
  • → Best AI Legal Tools 2026
  • → Debt Validation Letter Guide

Company

  • → About The Law Lion
  • → Client Results
  • → Transparent Pricing
  • → Legal Guides & Blog
  • → Contact & Free Consult
  • → Affiliate Program

Top Services

  • → Eviction Notice Response
  • → Debt Validation Letter
  • → Court Summons Response
© 2026 The Law Lion LLC · AI Legal Writing & Expert Document Service
Privacy PolicyTerms of ServiceSitemap