In re Christina M.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Christina M.

247 A.D.2d 867, 668 N.Y.S.2d 301, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1181

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

DecidedFebruary 4, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 247 A.D.2d 867 (In re Christina M.) 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 Christina M., 247 A.D.2d 867, 668 N.Y.S.2d 301, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1181 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: The determination of Family Court that respondent sexually abused his stepdaughter and thereby neglected his two other children is supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see, Family Ct Act § 1046 [b]; Matter of Nicole V., 71 NY2d 112, 117, rearg denied sub nom. Matter of Francis Charles W., 71 NY2d 890). The order, however, recites that the three children were abused. Where, as here, an order and decision conflict, the decision controls (see, Di Prospero v Ford Motor Co., 105 AD2d 479, 480). We therefore modify the order by deleting the first and second ordering paragraphs and substituting therefor the following: “adjudged that the facts sufficient to sustain the petition herein have been established, in that: the Respondent did abuse the subject child Christina M. and thereby neglect the subject children Richard R. and Billie M.”, and “adjudged that the above-named child Christina M. is an abused child as defined in Family Court Act § 1012 (e) (iii) and that the above-named children Richard R. and Billie M. are neglected children as defined in Family Court Act § 1012 (f) (i) (B)” (see generally, CPLR 5019 [a]; Littlefield v Goldome Bank, 142 AD2d 978). Finally, we conclude that respondent received meaningful representation (see, Matter of James HH., 234 AD2d 783, 784-785, lv denied 89 NY2d 812). (Appeal from Order of Oswego County Family Court, Roman, J. — Abuse.)

Present — Green, J. P., Lawton, Wisner, Callahan and Balio, JJ.

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

Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: The determination of Family Court that respondent sexually abused his stepdaughter and thereby neglected his two other children is supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see, Family Ct Act § 1046 [b]; Matter of Nicole V., 71 NY2d 112, 117, rearg denied sub nom. Matter of Francis Charles W., 71 NY2d 890). The order, however, recites that the three children were abused. Where, as here, an order and decision conflict, the decision controls (see, Di Prospero v Ford Motor Co., 105 AD2d 479, 480). We therefore modify the order by deleting the first and second ordering paragraphs and substituting therefor the following: “adjudged that the facts sufficient to sustain the petition herein have been established, in that: the Respondent did abuse the subject child Christina M. and thereby neglect the subject children Richard R. and Billie M.”, and “adjudged that the above-named child Christina M. is an abused child as defined in Family Court Act § 1012 (e) (iii) and that the above-named children Richard R. and Billie M. are neglected children as defined in Family Court Act § 1012 (f) (i) (B)” (see generally, CPLR 5019 [a]; Littlefield v Goldome Bank, 142 AD2d 978). Finally, we conclude that respondent received meaningful representation (see, Matter of James HH., 234 AD2d 783, 784-785, lv denied 89 NY2d 812). (Appeal from Order of Oswego County Family Court, Roman, J. — Abuse.)

Present — Green, J. P., Lawton, Wisner, Callahan and Balio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

247 A.D.2d 867, 668 N.Y.S.2d 301, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1181, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-christina-m-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack