In re Craig J.S.J.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Craig J.S.J.

309 A.D.2d 1284, 765 N.Y.S.2d 398, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10278

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

DecidedOctober 2, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 309 A.D.2d 1284 (In re Craig J.S.J.) 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 Craig J.S.J., 309 A.D.2d 1284, 765 N.Y.S.2d 398, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10278 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of Family Court, Onondaga County (Rossi, J.), entered February 21, 2002, which granted in part the motion of petitioner for access to the records of his adoption.

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

Memorandum: Family Court properly granted the motion of petitioner for access to the records of his adoption to the limited extent of directing the adoption clerk to furnish any medical information concerning petitioner’s natural parents contained in such records, and properly denied the motion in all other respects. Petitioner failed to serve notice of the motion on the adoptive parents as required by Domestic Relations Law § 114 (2) (see generally Matter of Marino, 291 AD2d 849, 850 [2002]). Further, the affidavit of petitioner’s treating physician fails to establish that petitioner suffers from a “serious physical or mental illness” (§ 114 [4]). Finally, the treating physician’s affidavit recites only that “whatever information we may [obtain]” is “extremely important” in order to “effectively treat” petitioner’s headaches. That affidavit fails to identify with sufficient particularity “the information required to address such illness” (id.). Present — Hurlbutt, J.P., Scudder, Kehoe, Gorski and Lawton, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of Family Court, Onondaga County (Rossi, J.), entered February 21, 2002, which granted in part the motion of petitioner for access to the records of his adoption.

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

Memorandum: Family Court properly granted the motion of petitioner for access to the records of his adoption to the limited extent of directing the adoption clerk to furnish any medical information concerning petitioner’s natural parents contained in such records, and properly denied the motion in all other respects. Petitioner failed to serve notice of the motion on the adoptive parents as required by Domestic Relations Law § 114 (2) (see generally Matter of Marino, 291 AD2d 849, 850 [2002]). Further, the affidavit of petitioner’s treating physician fails to establish that petitioner suffers from a “serious physical or mental illness” (§ 114 [4]). Finally, the treating physician’s affidavit recites only that “whatever information we may [obtain]” is “extremely important” in order to “effectively treat” petitioner’s headaches. That affidavit fails to identify with sufficient particularity “the information required to address such illness” (id.). Present — Hurlbutt, J.P., Scudder, Kehoe, Gorski and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

309 A.D.2d 1284, 765 N.Y.S.2d 398, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10278, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-craig-jsj-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack