In re Andre L.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Andre L.

112 A.D.3d 507, 976 N.Y.S.2d 387

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

DecidedDecember 17, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 112 A.D.3d 507 (In re Andre 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 Andre L., 112 A.D.3d 507, 976 N.Y.S.2d 387 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Carol A. Stokinger, J.), entered on or about January 4, 2010, which, upon a fact-finding determination that respondent mother neglected her son by failing to provide him with adequate and appropriate education, placed the child with petitioner agency until the next permanency hearing, scheduled for June 21, 2010, unanimously affirmed, without costs, insofar as it brings up for review the fact-finding determination, and the appeal therefrom otherwise dismissed as moot. Order of fact-finding, same court and Judge, entered on or about December 8, 2009, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

A preponderance of the evidence established that respondent failed to exercise even a “minimum degree of care” in providing her son with an education (see Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [A]; Matter of Baum, 61 AD2d 123,130-131 [2d Dept 1978], lv denied 44 NY2d 647 [1978]). Concur — Friedman, J.P, Acosta, Renwick, Manzanet-Daniels and Gische, JJ.

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

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Carol A. Stokinger, J.), entered on or about January 4, 2010, which, upon a fact-finding determination that respondent mother neglected her son by failing to provide him with adequate and appropriate education, placed the child with petitioner agency until the next permanency hearing, scheduled for June 21, 2010, unanimously affirmed, without costs, insofar as it brings up for review the fact-finding determination, and the appeal therefrom otherwise dismissed as moot. Order of fact-finding, same court and Judge, entered on or about December 8, 2009, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

A preponderance of the evidence established that respondent failed to exercise even a “minimum degree of care” in providing her son with an education (see Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [A]; Matter of Baum, 61 AD2d 123,130-131 [2d Dept 1978], lv denied 44 NY2d 647 [1978]). Concur — Friedman, J.P, Acosta, Renwick, Manzanet-Daniels and Gische, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

112 A.D.3d 507, 976 N.Y.S.2d 387, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-andre-l-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack