In re Daniel Williams D.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Daniel Williams D.

82 A.D.3d 882, 918 N.Y.2d 382

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 8, 2011·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Contrary to the mother’s contention, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in denying her request for an adjournment in order to present the testimony of a caseworker. The mother failed to subpoena the caseworker, although she had ample opportunity to do so, and she only speculated that the caseworker would offer testimony favorable to her (see Matter of Kaseem J., 52 AD3d 1321 [2008]; Matter of Alexander James R., 48 AD3d 820 [2008]; Matter of Alexa Ray R., 276 AD2d 703 [2000]). Dillon, J.E, Dickerson, Hall and Roman, JJ., concur.

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

Contrary to the mother’s contention, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in denying her request for an adjournment in order to present the testimony of a caseworker. The mother failed to subpoena the caseworker, although she had ample opportunity to do so, and she only speculated that the caseworker would offer testimony favorable to her (see Matter of Kaseem J., 52 AD3d 1321 [2008]; Matter of Alexander James R., 48 AD3d 820 [2008]; Matter of Alexa Ray R., 276 AD2d 703 [2000]). Dillon, J.E, Dickerson, Hall and Roman, JJ., concur.

In re Daniel Williams D., 82 A.D.3d 882, 918 N.Y.2d 382 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

82 A.D.3d 882 (In re Daniel Williams D.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related