In re Imiya P.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Imiya P.

69 A.D.3d 480, 891 N.Y.2d 646

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 19, 2010·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Respondent Randall S.’s challenge to the disposition is moot, since the terms of the order, along with the agency supervision, have expired (see Matter of Kazmir K., 63 AD3d 522 [2009]; Matter of Lashina P., 52 AD3d 293, 293 [2008]).

Were we to consider the merits, we would find that the requirement that respondent complete a drug rehabilitation program was supported by a preponderance of the evidence, including his own admission at fact-finding that he neglected the child by virtue of his drug use, and his failure to seek any treatment (see Matter of Jolie S., 298 AD2d 194 [2002]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.E, Saxe, Acosta, DeGrasse and ManzanetDaniels, JJ.

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

Respondent Randall S.’s challenge to the disposition is moot, since the terms of the order, along with the agency supervision, have expired (see Matter of Kazmir K., 63 AD3d 522 [2009]; Matter of Lashina P., 52 AD3d 293, 293 [2008]).

Were we to consider the merits, we would find that the requirement that respondent complete a drug rehabilitation program was supported by a preponderance of the evidence, including his own admission at fact-finding that he neglected the child by virtue of his drug use, and his failure to seek any treatment (see Matter of Jolie S., 298 AD2d 194 [2002]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.E, Saxe, Acosta, DeGrasse and ManzanetDaniels, JJ.

In re Imiya P., 69 A.D.3d 480, 891 N.Y.2d 646 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

69 A.D.3d 480 (In re Imiya P.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related