In re Darsharie C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Darsharie C.

237 A.D.2d 922, 654 N.Y.S.2d 508, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3518

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

DecidedMarch 14, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 237 A.D.2d 922 (In re Darsharie 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 Darsharie C., 237 A.D.2d 922, 654 N.Y.S.2d 508, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3518 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Although Family Court erred in terminating respondent’s parental rights in February 1994 without conducting a dispositional hearing (see, Family Ct Act § 625 [a]; Matter of Loretta OO., 114 AD2d 648, 649-650), respondent was not prejudiced thereby because the court, upon realizing its error, conducted a dispositional hearing in January 1995. In the absence of prejudice to respondent, it cannot be said that the failure of assigned counsel to appeal from the initial order deprived respondent of her right to effective assistance of counsel (see generally, Matter of Dingman v Purdy, 221 AD2d 817, 818). We further conclude that petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence at the fact-finding hearing that respondent had permanently neglected her children (see, Family Ct Act § 611; Social Services Law § 384-b [7]) and that, based upon the evidence presented at the dispositional hearing, termination of respondent’s parental rights was in the best interests of the children (see, Family Ct Act § 623). [923]*923(Appeal from Order of Erie County Family Court, Mix, J.— Terminate Parental Rights.) Present—Pine, J. P., Lawton, Do-err, Boehm and Fallon, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Although Family Court erred in terminating respondent’s parental rights in February 1994 without conducting a dispositional hearing (see, Family Ct Act § 625 [a]; Matter of Loretta OO., 114 AD2d 648, 649-650), respondent was not prejudiced thereby because the court, upon realizing its error, conducted a dispositional hearing in January 1995. In the absence of prejudice to respondent, it cannot be said that the failure of assigned counsel to appeal from the initial order deprived respondent of her right to effective assistance of counsel (see generally, Matter of Dingman v Purdy, 221 AD2d 817, 818). We further conclude that petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence at the fact-finding hearing that respondent had permanently neglected her children (see, Family Ct Act § 611; Social Services Law § 384-b [7]) and that, based upon the evidence presented at the dispositional hearing, termination of respondent’s parental rights was in the best interests of the children (see, Family Ct Act § 623). [923]*923(Appeal from Order of Erie County Family Court, Mix, J.— Terminate Parental Rights.) Present—Pine, J. P., Lawton, Do-err, Boehm and Fallon, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

237 A.D.2d 922, 654 N.Y.S.2d 508, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3518, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-darsharie-c-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack