In re Jazmone S.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Jazmone S.

48 A.D.3d 823, 851 N.Y.S.2d 369

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 26, 2008·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

In four related child protective proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the father appeals from a fact-finding order of the Family Court, Queens County (Richroath, J.), dated November 6, 2006, which, after a hearing, found that he neglected the subject children and violated the terms of a temporary order of protection of the same court.

Ordered that the fact-finding order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The evidence presented at the fact-finding hearing established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the father, Philip J., neglected the subject children (see Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i]; § 1046 [b] [i]; Matter of Wisdom, M., 32 AD3d 396 [2006]; Matter of Sheneika V., 20 AD3d 541 [2005]), and violated the terms of a temporary order of protection (see Family Ct Act § 1072; Matter of Christine G., 36 AD3d 615 [2007]).

The father’s remaining contentions are without merit. Mastro, J.P., Florio, Miller and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

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

In four related child protective proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the father appeals from a fact-finding order of the Family Court, Queens County (Richroath, J.), dated November 6, 2006, which, after a hearing, found that he neglected the subject children and violated the terms of a temporary order of protection of the same court.

Ordered that the fact-finding order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The evidence presented at the fact-finding hearing established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the father, Philip J., neglected the subject children (see Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i]; § 1046 [b] [i]; Matter of Wisdom, M., 32 AD3d 396 [2006]; Matter of Sheneika V., 20 AD3d 541 [2005]), and violated the terms of a temporary order of protection (see Family Ct Act § 1072; Matter of Christine G., 36 AD3d 615 [2007]).

The father’s remaining contentions are without merit. Mastro, J.P., Florio, Miller and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

In re Jazmone S., 48 A.D.3d 823, 851 N.Y.S.2d 369 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

48 A.D.3d 823 (In re Jazmone S.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related