In re Edward W.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Edward W.

242 A.D.2d 981, 668 N.Y.S.2d 963, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10668

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

DecidedSeptember 30, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 242 A.D.2d 981 (In re Edward W.) 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 Edward W., 242 A.D.2d 981, 668 N.Y.S.2d 963, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10668 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Motion for permission to proceed as a poor person and for assignment of counsel on appeal denied and appeal dismissed. Memorandum: Respondent consented to a finding of neglect, waived a dispositional hearing and consented to the placement of her children in the custody of petitioner, Erie County Department of Social Services, for one year. Under those circumstances, no effective relief is possible with respect to her appeal from an earlier order denying her motion for return of the children after they were removed pursuant to Family Court Act § 1027 (see, Matter of New York City Dept. of Social Servs. [Kalisha A.] v Diognes T., 208 AD2d 844; Matter of Catherine W. v Donald W., 166 AD2d 651; Matter of Ciotti v Butera, 24 AD2d 983). Thus, the appeal is dismissed. Present—Pifie, J. P., Lawton, Callahan, Doerr and Balio, JJ.

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

Motion for permission to proceed as a poor person and for assignment of counsel on appeal denied and appeal dismissed. Memorandum: Respondent consented to a finding of neglect, waived a dispositional hearing and consented to the placement of her children in the custody of petitioner, Erie County Department of Social Services, for one year. Under those circumstances, no effective relief is possible with respect to her appeal from an earlier order denying her motion for return of the children after they were removed pursuant to Family Court Act § 1027 (see, Matter of New York City Dept. of Social Servs. [Kalisha A.] v Diognes T., 208 AD2d 844; Matter of Catherine W. v Donald W., 166 AD2d 651; Matter of Ciotti v Butera, 24 AD2d 983). Thus, the appeal is dismissed. Present—Pifie, J. P., Lawton, Callahan, Doerr and Balio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

242 A.D.2d 981, 668 N.Y.S.2d 963, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10668, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-edward-w-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack