In re David H.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re David H.

295 A.D.2d 1004, 743 N.Y.S.2d 367, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6273

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

DecidedJune 14, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 295 A.D.2d 1004 (In re David H.) 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 David H., 295 A.D.2d 1004, 743 N.Y.S.2d 367, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6273 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from an order of Family Court, Genesee County (Griffith, J., for Graney, J.), entered August 4, 2000, which terminated respondent’s parental rights.

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

Memorandum: Family Court properly found that the best interests of the child would be served by terminating respondent’s parental rights and freeing the child for adoption (see Matter of Mark M., 267 AD2d 1045, 1046; Matter of Philip D., 266 AD2d 909). Respondent’s contention that the court erred in failing to interview the child in camera is not preserved for our review (see Matter of Hilliard v Peroni, 245 AD2d 1107, 1108; Matter of Nielsen v Nielsen, 225 AD2d 1050, lv denied 88 NY2d 805). In any event, that contention is lacking in merit because the child was then only six years old (see Matter of Crystal Q., 173 AD2d 912, 913-914, lv denied 78 NY2d 855; see generally Social Services Law § 384-b [3] [k]). Present—Hayes, J.P., Wisner, 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, Genesee County (Griffith, J., for Graney, J.), entered August 4, 2000, which terminated respondent’s parental rights.

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

Memorandum: Family Court properly found that the best interests of the child would be served by terminating respondent’s parental rights and freeing the child for adoption (see Matter of Mark M., 267 AD2d 1045, 1046; Matter of Philip D., 266 AD2d 909). Respondent’s contention that the court erred in failing to interview the child in camera is not preserved for our review (see Matter of Hilliard v Peroni, 245 AD2d 1107, 1108; Matter of Nielsen v Nielsen, 225 AD2d 1050, lv denied 88 NY2d 805). In any event, that contention is lacking in merit because the child was then only six years old (see Matter of Crystal Q., 173 AD2d 912, 913-914, lv denied 78 NY2d 855; see generally Social Services Law § 384-b [3] [k]). Present—Hayes, J.P., Wisner, Kehoe, Gorski and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

295 A.D.2d 1004, 743 N.Y.S.2d 367, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6273, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-david-h-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack