In re Anaya Michelle L.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Anaya Michelle L.

90 A.D.3d 432, 933 N.Y.2d 859

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

DecidedDecember 6, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 90 A.D.3d 432 (In re Anaya Michelle L.) 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 Anaya Michelle L., 90 A.D.3d 432, 933 N.Y.2d 859 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

The record reflects that respondent received meaningful representation from his counsel throughout the proceedings. Moreover, respondent has failed to show that his counsel’s performance was deficient and that the deficiency prejudiced him (People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712-713 [1998]; Matter of Aaron Tyrell W., 58 AD3d 419 [2009]). Although respondent’s counsel was not present for the fact-finding hearing, he excused himself only after the court denied his request for an adjournment due to respondent’s failure to appear. Respondent has not presented any excuse, let alone a reasonable excuse, for his default or a meritorious defense (Matter of Nikeerah S. [Barbara S.], 69 AD3d 421 [2010]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Friedman, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

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

The record reflects that respondent received meaningful representation from his counsel throughout the proceedings. Moreover, respondent has failed to show that his counsel’s performance was deficient and that the deficiency prejudiced him (People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712-713 [1998]; Matter of Aaron Tyrell W., 58 AD3d 419 [2009]). Although respondent’s counsel was not present for the fact-finding hearing, he excused himself only after the court denied his request for an adjournment due to respondent’s failure to appear. Respondent has not presented any excuse, let alone a reasonable excuse, for his default or a meritorious defense (Matter of Nikeerah S. [Barbara S.], 69 AD3d 421 [2010]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Friedman, Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

90 A.D.3d 432, 933 N.Y.2d 859, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-anaya-michelle-l-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack