In re Erica R.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Erica R.

261 A.D.2d 922, 689 N.Y.S.2d 795, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4999

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

DecidedMay 7, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 261 A.D.2d 922 (In re Erica R.) 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 Erica R., 261 A.D.2d 922, 689 N.Y.S.2d 795, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4999 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that respondent neglected his three children. “Petitioner established that the three children were subjected to an environment of alcohol and substance abuse and pervasive domestic violence” (Matter of Tina L., 255 AD2d 868) and that, as a result, each child’s “physical, mental or emotional condition has been impaired or is in imminent danger of becoming impaired” (Family Ct Act § 1012 [f\ [i]). We note that the orders of fact-finding and disposition erroneously recite that the finding of neglect is based upon Family Court Act § 1012 (e), which defines abuse, rather than section 1012 (f) (i) (B). We further note that respondent erroneously appealed from the decision rather than the order of disposition (see, Progressive Ins. Co. v Rudd Spray Serv., 236 AD2d 874). We exercise our discretion to disregard that mistake (see, CPLR 5520 [c]) and deem the appeal to have been taken from the order of disposition (see, Matter of Ariel C., 248 AD2d 976, lv denied 92 NY2d 801). (Appeal from Order of Jefferson County Family Court, Hunt, J. — Neglect.) Present — Green, J. P., Lawton, Wisner, Scudder and Callahan, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that respondent neglected his three children. “Petitioner established that the three children were subjected to an environment of alcohol and substance abuse and pervasive domestic violence” (Matter of Tina L., 255 AD2d 868) and that, as a result, each child’s “physical, mental or emotional condition has been impaired or is in imminent danger of becoming impaired” (Family Ct Act § 1012 [f\ [i]). We note that the orders of fact-finding and disposition erroneously recite that the finding of neglect is based upon Family Court Act § 1012 (e), which defines abuse, rather than section 1012 (f) (i) (B). We further note that respondent erroneously appealed from the decision rather than the order of disposition (see, Progressive Ins. Co. v Rudd Spray Serv., 236 AD2d 874). We exercise our discretion to disregard that mistake (see, CPLR 5520 [c]) and deem the appeal to have been taken from the order of disposition (see, Matter of Ariel C., 248 AD2d 976, lv denied 92 NY2d 801). (Appeal from Order of Jefferson County Family Court, Hunt, J. — Neglect.) Present — Green, J. P., Lawton, Wisner, Scudder and Callahan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 A.D.2d 922, 689 N.Y.S.2d 795, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4999, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-erica-r-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack