Conchita J. v. Scopetta

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Conchita J. v. Scopetta

273 A.D.2d 238, 709 N.Y.S.2d 834, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6258

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

DecidedJune 5, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 273 A.D.2d 238 (Conchita J. v. Scopetta) 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

Conchita J. v. Scopetta, 273 A.D.2d 238, 709 N.Y.S.2d 834, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6258 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

In a habeas corpus proceeding, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Salintro, J.), dated May 24, 1999, which, after a hearing, denied the petition.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

A writ of habeas corpus is not the proper procedure to seek review of the Family Court’s fact-finding order of neglect entered upon the mother’s default (see, People ex rel. Backus v Broome County Dept. of Social Servs., 240 AD2d 786, 787-788; Matter of Eddie J., 273 AD2d 239 [decided herewith]). The proper procedure is to move to vacate the fact-finding order, and if the motion is denied, to appeal from the order denying the motion [239]*239(see, Matter of Vanessa M., 263 AD2d 542; Matter of Hurst v Hurst, 227 AD2d 689). O’Brien, J. P., Joy, Luciano and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

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

In a habeas corpus proceeding, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Salintro, J.), dated May 24, 1999, which, after a hearing, denied the petition.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

A writ of habeas corpus is not the proper procedure to seek review of the Family Court’s fact-finding order of neglect entered upon the mother’s default (see, People ex rel. Backus v Broome County Dept. of Social Servs., 240 AD2d 786, 787-788; Matter of Eddie J., 273 AD2d 239 [decided herewith]). The proper procedure is to move to vacate the fact-finding order, and if the motion is denied, to appeal from the order denying the motion [239]*239(see, Matter of Vanessa M., 263 AD2d 542; Matter of Hurst v Hurst, 227 AD2d 689). O’Brien, J. P., Joy, Luciano and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

273 A.D.2d 238, 709 N.Y.S.2d 834, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6258, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/conchita-j-v-scopetta-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack