In re Jamie Marie B.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Jamie Marie B.

245 A.D.2d 447, 666 N.Y.S.2d 479, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13049

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

DecidedDecember 15, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 245 A.D.2d 447 (In re Jamie Marie B.) 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 Jamie Marie B., 245 A.D.2d 447, 666 N.Y.S.2d 479, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13049 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b to terminate the parental rights of Ann Marie B., the appeal is from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County [448]*448(Ambrosio, J.), dated January 30, 1996, which, after fact-finding and dispositional hearings, terminated her parental rights.

Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The termination of the mother’s parental rights was supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see, Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 NY2d 136, 147). The Family Court acted within its discretion by refusing to dismiss the proceeding or suspend judgment (see, Family Ct Act §§ 631, 633). Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Krausman and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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

—In a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b to terminate the parental rights of Ann Marie B., the appeal is from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County [448]*448(Ambrosio, J.), dated January 30, 1996, which, after fact-finding and dispositional hearings, terminated her parental rights.

Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The termination of the mother’s parental rights was supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see, Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 NY2d 136, 147). The Family Court acted within its discretion by refusing to dismiss the proceeding or suspend judgment (see, Family Ct Act §§ 631, 633). Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Krausman and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

245 A.D.2d 447, 666 N.Y.S.2d 479, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13049, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-jamie-marie-b-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack