In re Angel E

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Angel E

91 A.D.2d 1173, 459 N.Y.S.2d 337, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16519

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

DecidedJanuary 21, 1983

StatusPublished

This text of 91 A.D.2d 1173 (In re Angel E) 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 Angel E, 91 A.D.2d 1173, 459 N.Y.S.2d 337, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16519 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order affirmed, without costs. All concur, Simons, J. P., not participating. Memorandum: In affirming Family Court, we do not adopt its findings that a binding contract was made between the parties. It is undisputed that the attorney for the Department of Social Services made an unsolicited offer of an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal to the attorney for respondent Aaron McKnight, which offer, after consultation, was accepted by respondent McKnight. Although the record reveals a subsequent disagreement with that disposition by one employee of the petitioning agency, petitioner did not withdraw its consent or object to the disposition. As a matter of fact, petitioner participated in establishing the terms and conditions of the order which was then submitted by the petitioner to the Family Court. Under the circumstances, we find substantial compliance with the consent requirements of .the statute (Family Ct Act, § 1039). (Appeal from order of Monroe County Family Court, Willis, J. — neglect.) Present — Simons, J. P., Callahan, Doerr, Boomer and Moule, JJ.

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

— Order affirmed, without costs. All concur, Simons, J. P., not participating. Memorandum: In affirming Family Court, we do not adopt its findings that a binding contract was made between the parties. It is undisputed that the attorney for the Department of Social Services made an unsolicited offer of an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal to the attorney for respondent Aaron McKnight, which offer, after consultation, was accepted by respondent McKnight. Although the record reveals a subsequent disagreement with that disposition by one employee of the petitioning agency, petitioner did not withdraw its consent or object to the disposition. As a matter of fact, petitioner participated in establishing the terms and conditions of the order which was then submitted by the petitioner to the Family Court. Under the circumstances, we find substantial compliance with the consent requirements of .the statute (Family Ct Act, § 1039). (Appeal from order of Monroe County Family Court, Willis, J. — neglect.) Present — Simons, J. P., Callahan, Doerr, Boomer and Moule, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 A.D.2d 1173, 459 N.Y.S.2d 337, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16519, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-angel-e-nyappdiv-1983.