In re Desiree L.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Desiree L.

28 A.D.3d 483, 811 N.Y.S.2d 581

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

DecidedApril 4, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 28 A.D.3d 483 (In re Desiree L.) 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 Desiree L., 28 A.D.3d 483, 811 N.Y.S.2d 581 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

In related child protective proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the father appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Dutchess County (Forman, J.), dated July 14, 2004, made after a fact-finding hearing, as found that he had neglected Desiree L. and Dylan L.

[484]*484Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the father’s contention, the testimony adduced at the fact-finding hearing, which led to the order dated July 14, 2004, was sufficient to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he neglected Dylan L. and Desiree L. (see Family Ct Act § 1012 [f|; § 1046 [b] [i]; Matter of Curtis N, 290 AD2d 755, 757 [2002]; Matter of Brent B., 279 AD2d 817 [2001]; cf. Matter of Jemila PP., 12 AD3d 964 [2004]).

The father’s remaining contentions are without merit. Krausman, J.P., Mastro, Fisher and Covello, JJ., concur.

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

In related child protective proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the father appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Dutchess County (Forman, J.), dated July 14, 2004, made after a fact-finding hearing, as found that he had neglected Desiree L. and Dylan L.

[484]*484Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the father’s contention, the testimony adduced at the fact-finding hearing, which led to the order dated July 14, 2004, was sufficient to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he neglected Dylan L. and Desiree L. (see Family Ct Act § 1012 [f|; § 1046 [b] [i]; Matter of Curtis N, 290 AD2d 755, 757 [2002]; Matter of Brent B., 279 AD2d 817 [2001]; cf. Matter of Jemila PP., 12 AD3d 964 [2004]).

The father’s remaining contentions are without merit. Krausman, J.P., Mastro, Fisher and Covello, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 A.D.3d 483, 811 N.Y.S.2d 581, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-desiree-l-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack