In re Donald J.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Donald J.

21 A.D.3d 962, 800 N.Y.S.2d 644

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in In re Donald J.. Read the opinion of the Court — 25 A.D.3d 381 →

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided September 12, 2005·Published

Opinion

In a guardianship proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Dutchess County (Forman, J.), dated January 12, 2004, as granted the petition, awarded the petitioner guardianship of the subject child, and directed that her visitation with the subject child be supervised.

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

The Family Court properly awarded guardianship of the subject child to the petitioner (see Matter of Alexander N., 5 AD3d 776 [2004]; Matter of Bogdan v Bogdan, 291 AD2d 909 [2002]; Skidelsky v Skidelsky, 279 AD2d 356 [2001]; Matter of Porter v Burgey, 266 AD2d 552, 553 [1999]; Matter of Davis v Davis, 265 AD2d 552, 553 [1999]; Matter of Vangas v Ladas, 259 AD2d 755, 755-756 [1999]).

The mother’s remaining contentions are without merit. Schmidt, J.P., Krausman, Rivera and Fisher, JJ., concur.

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

In a guardianship proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Dutchess County (Forman, J.), dated January 12, 2004, as granted the petition, awarded the petitioner guardianship of the subject child, and directed that her visitation with the subject child be supervised.

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

The Family Court properly awarded guardianship of the subject child to the petitioner (see Matter of Alexander N., 5 AD3d 776 [2004]; Matter of Bogdan v Bogdan, 291 AD2d 909 [2002]; Skidelsky v Skidelsky, 279 AD2d 356 [2001]; Matter of Porter v Burgey, 266 AD2d 552, 553 [1999]; Matter of Davis v Davis, 265 AD2d 552, 553 [1999]; Matter of Vangas v Ladas, 259 AD2d 755, 755-756 [1999]).

The mother’s remaining contentions are without merit. Schmidt, J.P., Krausman, Rivera and Fisher, JJ., concur.

In re Donald J., 21 A.D.3d 962, 800 N.Y.S.2d 644 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

21 A.D.3d 962 (In re Donald J.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related