In re Alexis D.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Alexis D.

46 A.D.3d 1450, 847 N.Y.S.2d 490

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

DecidedDecember 21, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 46 A.D.3d 1450 (In re Alexis D.) 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 Alexis D., 46 A.D.3d 1450, 847 N.Y.S.2d 490 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal [1451]*1451from an order of the Family Court, Erie County (Margaret O. Szczur, J.), entered January 11, 2007 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10. The order, insofar as appealed from, adjudged that respondent Barrie D. had neglected his daughter.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Family Court properly denied the motion of respondent father seeking to vacate the order of fact-finding and disposition. Even assuming, arguendo, that the father did not willfully refuse to appear at the fact-finding hearing, we conclude that he failed to show a meritorious defense to the neglect petition (see Family Ct Act § 1042; Matter of Skyla C., 36 AD3d 614 [2007]). Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Martoche, Fahey, Peradotto and Green, JJ.

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

Appeal [1451]*1451from an order of the Family Court, Erie County (Margaret O. Szczur, J.), entered January 11, 2007 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10. The order, insofar as appealed from, adjudged that respondent Barrie D. had neglected his daughter.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Family Court properly denied the motion of respondent father seeking to vacate the order of fact-finding and disposition. Even assuming, arguendo, that the father did not willfully refuse to appear at the fact-finding hearing, we conclude that he failed to show a meritorious defense to the neglect petition (see Family Ct Act § 1042; Matter of Skyla C., 36 AD3d 614 [2007]). Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Martoche, Fahey, Peradotto and Green, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

46 A.D.3d 1450, 847 N.Y.S.2d 490, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-alexis-d-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack