In re Caleb B.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Caleb B.

17 A.D.3d 1159, 793 N.Y.S.2d 822

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

DecidedApril 29, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 17 A.D.3d 1159 (In re Caleb B.) 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 Caleb B., 17 A.D.3d 1159, 793 N.Y.S.2d 822 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Oneida County (Frank S. Cook, J.), entered May 14, 2004 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10. The order, insofar as appealed from, adjudged that respondent Oare S. neglected the children.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Contrary to respondent mother’s contentions, Family Court properly determined, following a fact-finding hearing, that respondent neglected Asa B. (see Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [B]) and derivatively neglected Caleb B. and Jewel S.-W. (see § 1046 [a] [i]). Respondent’s challenges to the constitutionality of section 1039 and 18 NYCRR 432.11 have not been preserved for our review (see Matter of Coleman v Thomas, 295 AD2d 508, 509 [2002]; see also Matter of Yorimar K.-M., 309 AD2d 1148, 1149 [2003]). We have examined respondent’s remaining contentions and conclude that they are lacking in merit. Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Scudder, Gorski, Pine and Lawton, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Oneida County (Frank S. Cook, J.), entered May 14, 2004 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10. The order, insofar as appealed from, adjudged that respondent Oare S. neglected the children.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Contrary to respondent mother’s contentions, Family Court properly determined, following a fact-finding hearing, that respondent neglected Asa B. (see Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [B]) and derivatively neglected Caleb B. and Jewel S.-W. (see § 1046 [a] [i]). Respondent’s challenges to the constitutionality of section 1039 and 18 NYCRR 432.11 have not been preserved for our review (see Matter of Coleman v Thomas, 295 AD2d 508, 509 [2002]; see also Matter of Yorimar K.-M., 309 AD2d 1148, 1149 [2003]). We have examined respondent’s remaining contentions and conclude that they are lacking in merit. Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Scudder, Gorski, Pine and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 A.D.3d 1159, 793 N.Y.S.2d 822, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-caleb-b-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack