In re Hanif T.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Hanif T.

38 A.D.3d 1349, 835 N.Y.S.2d 924

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

DecidedMarch 16, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 38 A.D.3d 1349 (In re Hanif T.) 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 Hanif T., 38 A.D.3d 1349, 835 N.Y.S.2d 924 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Oneida County (James R. Griffith, J.), entered December 30, 2005 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order revoked a suspended judgment and terminated respondent’s parental rights.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum:

We affirm for reasons stated in the decision at Family Court. We add only that, under the circumstances of this case, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying respondent’s request for an adjournment of the hearing (see Matter of Clarence S., 28 AD3d 1253, 1254 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 706 [2006]; Matter of Mark M., 267 AD2d 1045, 1046-1047 [1999]; Matter of Philip Jaye J., 256 AD2d 1201, 1201-1202 [1998]). Present—Martoche, J.P, Smith, Lunn, Fahey and Peradotto, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Oneida County (James R. Griffith, J.), entered December 30, 2005 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order revoked a suspended judgment and terminated respondent’s parental rights.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum:

We affirm for reasons stated in the decision at Family Court. We add only that, under the circumstances of this case, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying respondent’s request for an adjournment of the hearing (see Matter of Clarence S., 28 AD3d 1253, 1254 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 706 [2006]; Matter of Mark M., 267 AD2d 1045, 1046-1047 [1999]; Matter of Philip Jaye J., 256 AD2d 1201, 1201-1202 [1998]). Present—Martoche, J.P, Smith, Lunn, Fahey and Peradotto, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 A.D.3d 1349, 835 N.Y.S.2d 924, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-hanif-t-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack