In re G. Children

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re G. Children

47 A.D.3d 713, 848 N.Y.S.2d 895

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

DecidedJanuary 15, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 47 A.D.3d 713 (In re G. Children) 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 G. Children, 47 A.D.3d 713, 848 N.Y.S.2d 895 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

In related child protective proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, nonparty Joan C. Forrester, the attorney for the respondent mother, appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Richardson-Mendelson, J.), dated March 9, 2007, which, inter alia, imposed a sanction against her in the sum of $1,000.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, by deleting the provision thereof imposing a sanction in the sum of $1,000 and substituting a provision therefor imposing a sanction in the sum of $250; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Family Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in imposing a sanction upon the respondent mother’s attorney. However, the sanction is excessive to the extent indicated. Prudenti, P.J., Crane, Fisher and McCarthy, 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, nonparty Joan C. Forrester, the attorney for the respondent mother, appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Richardson-Mendelson, J.), dated March 9, 2007, which, inter alia, imposed a sanction against her in the sum of $1,000.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, by deleting the provision thereof imposing a sanction in the sum of $1,000 and substituting a provision therefor imposing a sanction in the sum of $250; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Family Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in imposing a sanction upon the respondent mother’s attorney. However, the sanction is excessive to the extent indicated. Prudenti, P.J., Crane, Fisher and McCarthy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

47 A.D.3d 713, 848 N.Y.S.2d 895, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-g-children-nyappdiv-2008.