In re Andrei S.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Andrei S.

47 A.D.3d 721, 848 N.Y.S.2d 887

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

DecidedJanuary 15, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 47 A.D.3d 721 (In re Andrei S.) 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 Andrei S., 47 A.D.3d 721, 848 N.Y.S.2d 887 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the father appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a fact-finding order of the Family Court, Kings County (Freeman, J), dated July 13, 2006, as, after a fact-finding hearing, found that he neglected the subject child.

Ordered that the fact-finding order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the father’s contention, the Family Court correctly found, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he neglected his son by failing to provide him with adequate medical care (see Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [A]; § 1046 [b] [i]). When the father became aware of the child’s condition, he failed to promptly seek medical care for the child or to follow through on recommendations from medical authorities, thus supporting a finding of neglect (see Matter of William AA., 24 AD3d 1125 [2005]; Matter of Zakrya M., 18 AD3d 754 [2005]). Skelos, J.P, Santucci, Lifson and Garni, 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 father appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a fact-finding order of the Family Court, Kings County (Freeman, J), dated July 13, 2006, as, after a fact-finding hearing, found that he neglected the subject child.

Ordered that the fact-finding order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the father’s contention, the Family Court correctly found, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he neglected his son by failing to provide him with adequate medical care (see Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [A]; § 1046 [b] [i]). When the father became aware of the child’s condition, he failed to promptly seek medical care for the child or to follow through on recommendations from medical authorities, thus supporting a finding of neglect (see Matter of William AA., 24 AD3d 1125 [2005]; Matter of Zakrya M., 18 AD3d 754 [2005]). Skelos, J.P, Santucci, Lifson and Garni, JJ, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

47 A.D.3d 721, 848 N.Y.S.2d 887, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-andrei-s-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack