In re Cindy C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Cindy C.

215 A.D.2d 390, 626 N.Y.S.2d 976, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4707

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

DecidedMay 1, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 215 A.D.2d 390 (In re Cindy C.) 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 Cindy C., 215 A.D.2d 390, 626 N.Y.S.2d 976, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4707 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b, the intervenor Cindy C. appeals from an order of the Family Court, Richmond County (Schechter, J.), dated June 30, 1993, which, after a fact-finding hearing, determined that the best interests of the child would be promoted by the plan for his adoption by Renee M., the maternal aunt, and directed the child to be placed in her home forthwith.

Ordered that on the Court’s own motion, the appellant’s notice of appeal is treated as an application for leave to appeal, and leave to appeal is granted (see, CPLR 5701 [c]); and it is further,

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

We agree with the Family Court that based on the totality of circumstances, the best interests of the child will be promoted by the plan for his adoption by Renee M., the maternal [391]*391aunt (see, Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167). Sullivan, J. P., Miller, Copertino, Joy and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b, the intervenor Cindy C. appeals from an order of the Family Court, Richmond County (Schechter, J.), dated June 30, 1993, which, after a fact-finding hearing, determined that the best interests of the child would be promoted by the plan for his adoption by Renee M., the maternal aunt, and directed the child to be placed in her home forthwith.

Ordered that on the Court’s own motion, the appellant’s notice of appeal is treated as an application for leave to appeal, and leave to appeal is granted (see, CPLR 5701 [c]); and it is further,

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

We agree with the Family Court that based on the totality of circumstances, the best interests of the child will be promoted by the plan for his adoption by Renee M., the maternal [391]*391aunt (see, Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167). Sullivan, J. P., Miller, Copertino, Joy and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

215 A.D.2d 390, 626 N.Y.S.2d 976, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4707, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-cindy-c-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack