In re Jason J.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Jason J.

237 A.D.2d 357, 655 N.Y.S.2d 438, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2293

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 10, 1997·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

In two related child protective proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the mother appeals from two orders of disposition of the Family Court, Queens County (Lubow, J.) (one as to each child), both dated March 29, 1995, which, upon fact-finding orders of the same court, dated November 4, 1994, made after a hearing, finding that she had neglected her children, directed that the children be supervised in her custody for a period of 12 months. The appeals bring up for review the fact-finding orders dated November 4, 1994.

[358] Ordered that the orders of disposition are affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

While much of the testimony at the fact-finding hearing was conflicting, great weight must be accorded to the Family Court’s assessment of witness credibility (see, Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. of City of N. Y. [Julian L.[ v Hyacinth L., 210 AD2d 329, 331). The evidence supports the Family Court’s finding that both children were neglected by the appellant mother (see, Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [B]; § 1046 [b] [i]; Matter of Cody P., 227 AD2d 724; Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. of City of N. Y. [Julian L.[ v Hyacinth L., supra; Matter of Victoria SS., 108 AD2d 989).

The appellant’s contentions concerning the dispositional hearing are academic, as the terms of the orders of disposition have already expired (see, Matter of Nicholas P., 197 AD2d 693). Miller, J. P., Sullivan, Florio and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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

In two related child protective proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the mother appeals from two orders of disposition of the Family Court, Queens County (Lubow, J.) (one as to each child), both dated March 29, 1995, which, upon fact-finding orders of the same court, dated November 4, 1994, made after a hearing, finding that she had neglected her children, directed that the children be supervised in her custody for a period of 12 months. The appeals bring up for review the fact-finding orders dated November 4, 1994.

[358] Ordered that the orders of disposition are affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

While much of the testimony at the fact-finding hearing was conflicting, great weight must be accorded to the Family Court’s assessment of witness credibility (see, Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. of City of N. Y. [Julian L.[ v Hyacinth L., 210 AD2d 329, 331). The evidence supports the Family Court’s finding that both children were neglected by the appellant mother (see, Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [B]; § 1046 [b] [i]; Matter of Cody P., 227 AD2d 724; Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. of City of N. Y. [Julian L.[ v Hyacinth L., supra; Matter of Victoria SS., 108 AD2d 989).

The appellant’s contentions concerning the dispositional hearing are academic, as the terms of the orders of disposition have already expired (see, Matter of Nicholas P., 197 AD2d 693). Miller, J. P., Sullivan, Florio and Luciano, JJ., concur.

In re Jason J., 237 A.D.2d 357, 655 N.Y.S.2d 438, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2293 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

237 A.D.2d 357 (In re Jason J.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related