In re Jasmine Rose M.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Jasmine Rose M.

277 A.D.2d 384, 716 N.Y.S.2d 591, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12150

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

DecidedNovember 20, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 277 A.D.2d 384 (In re Jasmine Rose M.) 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 Jasmine Rose M., 277 A.D.2d 384, 716 N.Y.S.2d 591, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12150 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b to terminate parental rights on the ground of permanent neglect, nonparty Edward A, Bannan, attorney for the father, appeals from a judgment of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Simeone, J.), entered February 15, 2000, which, after a hearing, imposed a sanction of $50 for his failure to appear at trial.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, as an exercise of discretion, without costs or disbursements, and the sanction is vacated.

Under the circumstances of this case, the appellant offered an adequate explanation for his failure to appear at trial and that his failure to appear was not deliberate or without good cause {see, 22 NYCRR 130-2.1 [b]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in sanctioning the appellant. Santucci, J. P., Sullivan, Altman and Krausman, 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 parental rights on the ground of permanent neglect, nonparty Edward A, Bannan, attorney for the father, appeals from a judgment of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Simeone, J.), entered February 15, 2000, which, after a hearing, imposed a sanction of $50 for his failure to appear at trial.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, as an exercise of discretion, without costs or disbursements, and the sanction is vacated.

Under the circumstances of this case, the appellant offered an adequate explanation for his failure to appear at trial and that his failure to appear was not deliberate or without good cause {see, 22 NYCRR 130-2.1 [b]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in sanctioning the appellant. Santucci, J. P., Sullivan, Altman and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

277 A.D.2d 384, 716 N.Y.S.2d 591, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12150, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-jasmine-rose-m-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack