In re Christina Marie B.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Christina Marie B.

155 A.D.2d 277

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

DecidedNovember 9, 1989

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 155 A.D.2d 277 (In re Christina Marie 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 Christina Marie B., 155 A.D.2d 277 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

— Three orders, Family Court, New York County (Bruce Kaplan, J.), each entered May 21, 1987, which, in a proceeding brought pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b, terminated the parental rights of the respondent parents, and awarded custody to the Commissioner of Social Services, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

A review of the several adjournment proceeding transcripts shows no abuse of discretion in denying the request for an adjournment and holding the evidentiary fact-finding hearing on the day set. Nor were the respondents deprived of their constitutional due process rights by the denial of an adjournment under all the circumstances. (Matter of Burnes v Burnes, 60 Misc 2d 675, 677.) Further, conducting the dispositional hearing the same day, immediately following the fact-finding hearing, was also permissible. (Family Ct Act § 625 [a].) Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Carro, Asch, Kassal and Rosenberger, JJ.

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

— Three orders, Family Court, New York County (Bruce Kaplan, J.), each entered May 21, 1987, which, in a proceeding brought pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b, terminated the parental rights of the respondent parents, and awarded custody to the Commissioner of Social Services, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

A review of the several adjournment proceeding transcripts shows no abuse of discretion in denying the request for an adjournment and holding the evidentiary fact-finding hearing on the day set. Nor were the respondents deprived of their constitutional due process rights by the denial of an adjournment under all the circumstances. (Matter of Burnes v Burnes, 60 Misc 2d 675, 677.) Further, conducting the dispositional hearing the same day, immediately following the fact-finding hearing, was also permissible. (Family Ct Act § 625 [a].) Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Carro, Asch, Kassal and Rosenberger, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

155 A.D.2d 277, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-christina-marie-b-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack