In re Angelica V.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Angelica V.

300 A.D.2d 594, 751 N.Y.S.2d 865

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

DecidedDecember 23, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 300 A.D.2d 594 (In re Angelica V.) 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 Angelica V., 300 A.D.2d 594, 751 N.Y.S.2d 865 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—In two related child protective proceedings pursuant to Family article 10, the petitioner Suffolk County Department of Social Services appeals from so much of an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Lynaugh, J.), entered June 28, 2002, as continued supervised visitation between the subject children and the father.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and supervised visitation between the subject children and the father is discontinued.

The Family Court’s determination lacked a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Krebsbach v Gallagher, 181 AD2d 363, 368).

In light of our determination, the Law Guardian’s remaining contention need not be addressed. Ritter, J.P., Goldstein, Crane and Mastro, JJ., concur.

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

—In two related child protective proceedings pursuant to Family article 10, the petitioner Suffolk County Department of Social Services appeals from so much of an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Lynaugh, J.), entered June 28, 2002, as continued supervised visitation between the subject children and the father.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and supervised visitation between the subject children and the father is discontinued.

The Family Court’s determination lacked a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Krebsbach v Gallagher, 181 AD2d 363, 368).

In light of our determination, the Law Guardian’s remaining contention need not be addressed. Ritter, J.P., Goldstein, Crane and Mastro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

300 A.D.2d 594, 751 N.Y.S.2d 865, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-angelica-v-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack