In re Giancarlo P.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Giancarlo P.

306 A.D.2d 28, 761 N.Y.S.2d 165, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6197

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

DecidedJune 3, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 306 A.D.2d 28 (In re Giancarlo P.) 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 Giancarlo P., 306 A.D.2d 28, 761 N.Y.S.2d 165, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6197 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Family Court, New York County (Helen Sturm, J.), entered on or about May 8, 2002, dismissing a child protective proceeding alleging educational neglect, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The child’s prolonged, unexcused absence from school does not, ipso facto, establish either the parental misconduct or the harm or potential harm to the child necessary to a finding of neglect under Family Ct Act § 1012 (f) (i) (A) (see Matter of Jessica Y., 161 AD2d 368 [1990]; Matter of Jennifer N., 173 AD2d 971, 972 [1991]). A preponderance of the evidence shows that respondent was actively engaged with school authorities in the process of securing an appropriate and specific special education placement for the child, and there is no evidence that the [29]*29child’s education was adversely affected by his absence from school. Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Tom, Andrias and Lerner, JJ.

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

—Order, Family Court, New York County (Helen Sturm, J.), entered on or about May 8, 2002, dismissing a child protective proceeding alleging educational neglect, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The child’s prolonged, unexcused absence from school does not, ipso facto, establish either the parental misconduct or the harm or potential harm to the child necessary to a finding of neglect under Family Ct Act § 1012 (f) (i) (A) (see Matter of Jessica Y., 161 AD2d 368 [1990]; Matter of Jennifer N., 173 AD2d 971, 972 [1991]). A preponderance of the evidence shows that respondent was actively engaged with school authorities in the process of securing an appropriate and specific special education placement for the child, and there is no evidence that the [29]*29child’s education was adversely affected by his absence from school. Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Tom, Andrias and Lerner, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

306 A.D.2d 28, 761 N.Y.S.2d 165, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6197, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-giancarlo-p-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack