In re Antonio V.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Antonio V.

268 A.D.2d 341, 701 N.Y.S.2d 417, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 483

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

DecidedJanuary 20, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 268 A.D.2d 341 (In re Antonio 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 Antonio V., 268 A.D.2d 341, 701 N.Y.S.2d 417, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 483 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Marjory Fields, J.), entered on or about September 12, 1995, which terminated appellant’s parental rights to the subject children upon a finding of mental retardation, and committed guardianship and custody of the children to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of Administration of Family Services, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The uncontroverted testimony of the court-appointed psychologist provided clear and convincing evidence that appellant suffered from mental retardation and that he is presently and for the foreseeable future unable, by reason of such condition, to care adequately for the children. Given the record that establishes appellant’s present and future inability to adequately care for the children, a dispositional hearing was not necessary in order to find that termination of appellant’s parental rights was in the best interests of the children (Matter of Joyce T., 65 NY2d 39). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Rubin, Andrias and Buckley, JJ.

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

—Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Marjory Fields, J.), entered on or about September 12, 1995, which terminated appellant’s parental rights to the subject children upon a finding of mental retardation, and committed guardianship and custody of the children to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of Administration of Family Services, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The uncontroverted testimony of the court-appointed psychologist provided clear and convincing evidence that appellant suffered from mental retardation and that he is presently and for the foreseeable future unable, by reason of such condition, to care adequately for the children. Given the record that establishes appellant’s present and future inability to adequately care for the children, a dispositional hearing was not necessary in order to find that termination of appellant’s parental rights was in the best interests of the children (Matter of Joyce T., 65 NY2d 39). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Rubin, Andrias and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

268 A.D.2d 341, 701 N.Y.S.2d 417, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 483, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-antonio-v-nyappdiv-2000.