In re A. Children

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re A. Children

189 A.D.2d 872, 592 N.Y.S.2d 773, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 559

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

DecidedJanuary 25, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 189 A.D.2d 872 (In re A. Children) 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

In re A. Children, 189 A.D.2d 872, 592 N.Y.S.2d 773, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 559 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the mother appeals from a dispositional order of the Family Court, Kings County (Palmer, J.), entered November 8, 1990, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court, dated December 13, 1989, which, after a hearing, held that she neglected her three children, placed her three children with the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York for 12 months.

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

There was ample evidence to support the Family Court’s determination that the appellant neglected her three children. Medical records indicated that the appellant failed to obtain treatment for one of her children’s sprained and swollen leg (see, Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [A]). The assigned caseworker testified that the appellant admitted that she regularly used crack cocaine (see, Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [B]). Further, the caseworker testified as to the deplorable conditions at the appellant’s apartment, which included exposed electric wires, seeping rainwater, broken windows, lack of lighting, and ankle-deep garbage (see, Family Ct Act § 1012 [f| [i] [A]). Lastly, the caseworker testified as to the lack of care provided for the children (see, Family Ct Act § 1012 [f| [i] [A]). Specifically, the caseworker observed that the children were wearing [873]*873filthy and ill-fitting clothing, had not bathed, and smelled of urine (see also, Matter of Joey T., 185 AD2d 851; Matter of Scott X., 184 AD2d 866; Matter of C. Children, 183 AD2d 767).

We find no merit to the appellant’s contention that she was not afforded effective assistance of counsel (see, Matter of Erin G., 139 AD2d 737).

We have examined the appellant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Balletta, Ritter and Santucci, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the mother appeals from a dispositional order of the Family Court, Kings County (Palmer, J.), entered November 8, 1990, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court, dated December 13, 1989, which, after a hearing, held that she neglected her three children, placed her three children with the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York for 12 months.

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

There was ample evidence to support the Family Court’s determination that the appellant neglected her three children. Medical records indicated that the appellant failed to obtain treatment for one of her children’s sprained and swollen leg (see, Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [A]). The assigned caseworker testified that the appellant admitted that she regularly used crack cocaine (see, Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [B]). Further, the caseworker testified as to the deplorable conditions at the appellant’s apartment, which included exposed electric wires, seeping rainwater, broken windows, lack of lighting, and ankle-deep garbage (see, Family Ct Act § 1012 [f| [i] [A]). Lastly, the caseworker testified as to the lack of care provided for the children (see, Family Ct Act § 1012 [f| [i] [A]). Specifically, the caseworker observed that the children were wearing [873]*873filthy and ill-fitting clothing, had not bathed, and smelled of urine (see also, Matter of Joey T., 185 AD2d 851; Matter of Scott X., 184 AD2d 866; Matter of C. Children, 183 AD2d 767).

We find no merit to the appellant’s contention that she was not afforded effective assistance of counsel (see, Matter of Erin G., 139 AD2d 737).

We have examined the appellant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Balletta, Ritter and Santucci, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

189 A.D.2d 872, 592 N.Y.S.2d 773, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 559, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-a-children-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack