In re Jared

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Jared

225 A.D.2d 1049, 639 N.Y.2d 773, 639 N.Y.S.2d 773, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2878

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

DecidedMarch 8, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 225 A.D.2d 1049 (In re Jared) 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 Jared, 225 A.D.2d 1049, 639 N.Y.2d 773, 639 N.Y.S.2d 773, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2878 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum: We affirm for reasons stated in the decision at Surrogate’s Court. We add only that the issue of respondent’s standing (see, Domestic Relations Law § 111 [1] [a]) may not be raised for the first time on appeal because it "could have been obviated or cured by factual showings or legal countersteps” in the trial court (Telaro v Telaro, 25 NY2d 433, 439, rearg denied 26 NY2d 751; see, Oram v Capone, 206 AD2d 839, 840; cf., Matter of Baby Girl, 206 AD2d 932, 933). Were we to reach the issue in the exercise of our discretion, we would nevertheless affirm. The record establishes that respondent had regular communication with the child and provided support for him during the first seven years of the child’s life (cf., Matter of Andrew Peter H. T., 64 NY2d 1090). (Appeals from Order of Monroe County Surrogate’s Court, Ciaccio, S. — Adoption.) Present— Green, J. P., Fallon, Wesley, Davis and Boehm, JJ.

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

Memorandum: We affirm for reasons stated in the decision at Surrogate’s Court. We add only that the issue of respondent’s standing (see, Domestic Relations Law § 111 [1] [a]) may not be raised for the first time on appeal because it "could have been obviated or cured by factual showings or legal countersteps” in the trial court (Telaro v Telaro, 25 NY2d 433, 439, rearg denied 26 NY2d 751; see, Oram v Capone, 206 AD2d 839, 840; cf., Matter of Baby Girl, 206 AD2d 932, 933). Were we to reach the issue in the exercise of our discretion, we would nevertheless affirm. The record establishes that respondent had regular communication with the child and provided support for him during the first seven years of the child’s life (cf., Matter of Andrew Peter H. T., 64 NY2d 1090). (Appeals from Order of Monroe County Surrogate’s Court, Ciaccio, S. — Adoption.) Present— Green, J. P., Fallon, Wesley, Davis and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

225 A.D.2d 1049, 639 N.Y.2d 773, 639 N.Y.S.2d 773, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2878, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-jared-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack