In re Deja E.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Deja E.

309 A.D.2d 1271, 765 N.Y.S.2d 554

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

DecidedOctober 2, 2003

DocketAppeal No. 2

StatusPublished

This text of 309 A.D.2d 1271 (In re Deja E.) 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 Deja E., 309 A.D.2d 1271, 765 N.Y.S.2d 554 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of Family Court, Erie County (Rosa, J.), entered May 23, 2002, which adjudged respondent’s child to be a permanently neglected child and 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: Respondent appeals from an order adjudicating his child permanently neglected and terminating his parental rights. We reject the contention of respondent that Family Court erred in determining, based upon his admission, that he permanently neglected the child. Respondent does not contend that his admission to permanent neglect was inadequate (cf. Matter of Atiba Andrew B., 275 AD2d 320, 321 [2000]; Matter of Matthew H., 274 AD2d 975 [2000]), nor does he contend that it was unknowing or involuntary (cf. Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. [Steven D.]), 232 AD2d 557, 557-558 [1996]). Present — Green, J.P., Pine, Wisner and Hayes, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of Family Court, Erie County (Rosa, J.), entered May 23, 2002, which adjudged respondent’s child to be a permanently neglected child and 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: Respondent appeals from an order adjudicating his child permanently neglected and terminating his parental rights. We reject the contention of respondent that Family Court erred in determining, based upon his admission, that he permanently neglected the child. Respondent does not contend that his admission to permanent neglect was inadequate (cf. Matter of Atiba Andrew B., 275 AD2d 320, 321 [2000]; Matter of Matthew H., 274 AD2d 975 [2000]), nor does he contend that it was unknowing or involuntary (cf. Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. [Steven D.]), 232 AD2d 557, 557-558 [1996]). Present — Green, J.P., Pine, Wisner and Hayes, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

309 A.D.2d 1271, 765 N.Y.S.2d 554, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-deja-e-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack