In re Cynthonia T.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Cynthonia T.

198 A.D.2d 111, 603 N.Y.S.2d 465

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

DecidedNovember 16, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 198 A.D.2d 111 (In re Cynthonia T.) 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 Cynthonia T., 198 A.D.2d 111, 603 N.Y.S.2d 465 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Orders of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Ruth Jane Zuckerman, J.), entered September 17, 1991, which terminated the parental rights of the infant children and transferred their custody and guardianship to petitioner for purposes of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Upon a determination that the children had been aban[112]*112doned by their natural parents, the Family Court held a dispositional hearing, during which the children’s maternal grandmother was granted permission to intervene. Contrary to appellant’s unpreserved assertion, her status as a maternal grandmother does not entitle her to a "pre-emptive right” to custody of the children (Matter of Chiquita J., 170 AD2d 353, 354, lv denied 78 NY2d 852). Moreover, her reliance upon Matter of Michael B. (80 NY2d 299), does not support her claim to such preference. Finally, we find the court’s determination accords with the children’s best interests. Concur— Carro, J. P., Rosenberger, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.

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

—Orders of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Ruth Jane Zuckerman, J.), entered September 17, 1991, which terminated the parental rights of the infant children and transferred their custody and guardianship to petitioner for purposes of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Upon a determination that the children had been aban[112]*112doned by their natural parents, the Family Court held a dispositional hearing, during which the children’s maternal grandmother was granted permission to intervene. Contrary to appellant’s unpreserved assertion, her status as a maternal grandmother does not entitle her to a "pre-emptive right” to custody of the children (Matter of Chiquita J., 170 AD2d 353, 354, lv denied 78 NY2d 852). Moreover, her reliance upon Matter of Michael B. (80 NY2d 299), does not support her claim to such preference. Finally, we find the court’s determination accords with the children’s best interests. Concur— Carro, J. P., Rosenberger, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

198 A.D.2d 111, 603 N.Y.S.2d 465, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-cynthonia-t-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack