Annie M. v. Dowling

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Annie M. v. Dowling

226 A.D.2d 291, 642 N.Y.S.2d 210, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4623

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

DecidedApril 30, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 226 A.D.2d 291 (Annie M. v. Dowling) 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

Annie M. v. Dowling, 226 A.D.2d 291, 642 N.Y.S.2d 210, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4623 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paula Omansky, J.), entered on or about January 18, 1995, which, inter alia, annulled respondents’ determination denying petitioner’s application for reinstatement of her foster care benefits, unanimously affirmed, without costs, without prejudice to any further proceedings in Family Court.

The failure of respondent City Department of Social Services [292]*292to file the mandatory petition in Family Court for review of the child’s placement did not automatically terminate the placement order, nor did it relieve the agency of its ongoing responsibility to the child (Matter of Dale P., 84 NY2d 72, 80-81; Matter of Carter v Bane, 159 Misc 2d 786). Moreover, petitioner had no knowledge of the termination of the placement order, nor of her involuntary loss of foster parent status, particularly since the Department continued to make foster care payments leaving petitioner in no position to seek a remedy. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Rubin, Kupferman, Ross and Tom, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paula Omansky, J.), entered on or about January 18, 1995, which, inter alia, annulled respondents’ determination denying petitioner’s application for reinstatement of her foster care benefits, unanimously affirmed, without costs, without prejudice to any further proceedings in Family Court.

The failure of respondent City Department of Social Services [292]*292to file the mandatory petition in Family Court for review of the child’s placement did not automatically terminate the placement order, nor did it relieve the agency of its ongoing responsibility to the child (Matter of Dale P., 84 NY2d 72, 80-81; Matter of Carter v Bane, 159 Misc 2d 786). Moreover, petitioner had no knowledge of the termination of the placement order, nor of her involuntary loss of foster parent status, particularly since the Department continued to make foster care payments leaving petitioner in no position to seek a remedy. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Rubin, Kupferman, Ross and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

226 A.D.2d 291, 642 N.Y.S.2d 210, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4623, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/annie-m-v-dowling-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack