In re Baby H.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Baby H.

264 A.D.2d 419, 693 N.Y.S.2d 447

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

DecidedAugust 9, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 264 A.D.2d 419 (In re Baby H.) 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 Baby H., 264 A.D.2d 419, 693 N.Y.S.2d 447 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

In a child protective proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Richmond County (McElrath, J.), dated March 3, 1999, which, inter alia, denied his application to be released from custody.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The evidence supports the Family Court’s finding that the [420]*420father, in contempt of court, continues to willfully refuse to comply with repeated orders to produce the subject child or apprise the court of the child’s whereabouts (see, Judiciary Law § 753). The evidence further supports the court’s finding that the father presently possesses the ability to comply with the orders and thereby purge his contempt. Thus, the court properly denied the father’s application to be released from custody. Joy, J. P., Friedmann, Schmidt and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

In a child protective proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Richmond County (McElrath, J.), dated March 3, 1999, which, inter alia, denied his application to be released from custody.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The evidence supports the Family Court’s finding that the [420]*420father, in contempt of court, continues to willfully refuse to comply with repeated orders to produce the subject child or apprise the court of the child’s whereabouts (see, Judiciary Law § 753). The evidence further supports the court’s finding that the father presently possesses the ability to comply with the orders and thereby purge his contempt. Thus, the court properly denied the father’s application to be released from custody. Joy, J. P., Friedmann, Schmidt and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

264 A.D.2d 419, 693 N.Y.S.2d 447, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-baby-h-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack