In re Alfredo T.

61 A.D.3d 690, 875 N.Y.S.2d 912
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 7, 2009
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 61 A.D.3d 690 (In re Alfredo T.) 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 Alfredo T., 61 A.D.3d 690, 875 N.Y.S.2d 912 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Opinion

In six related child protective proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, Miguel E appeals from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Ruiz, J.), dated May 22, 2008, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court dated Janu[691]*691ary 9, 2008, made after a hearing, finding him to be a person legally responsible for the care of the subject children and finding that he abused Leticia T-E and derivatively abused Alfredo T, Allan E, Michael E, Arly E, and Nelly T.E, inter alia, released the children to the custody of their respective parents and placed him under the supervision of the Administration for Children’s Services until November 21, 2008. The appeal from the order of disposition brings up for review the fact-finding order.

Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order of disposition as placed the appellant under the supervision of the Administration for Children’s Services until November 21, 2008 is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements, as that portion of the order of disposition expired by its own terms; and it is further,

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

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the Family Court properly found that he was a “[p]erson legally responsible” for the care of the subject children and, as such, was a proper party to the subject child protective proceedings (Family Ct Act § 1012 [g]; see Matter of Yolanda D., 88 NY2d 790, 797 [1996]; Matter of Lillian C., 8 AD3d 270, 271 [2004]; Matter of Nathaniel TT., 265 AD2d 611, 612-613 [1999]; Matter of Mary Alice V., 222 AD2d 594, 595 [1995]). Rivera, J.P., Angiolillo, Eng and Belen, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Matter of Jonah B. (Riva v.
2018 NY Slip Op 6736 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Matter of Allyssa O. (Edward N.)
132 A.D.3d 768 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
In re Emani W.
107 A.D.3d 815 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
In re Dior W.
105 A.D.3d 753 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
In re Angel S.
66 A.D.3d 786 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
61 A.D.3d 690, 875 N.Y.S.2d 912, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-alfredo-t-nyappdiv-2009.