In re Joseph H.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Joseph H.

211 A.D.2d 586, 621 N.Y.S.2d 873

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

DecidedJanuary 31, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 211 A.D.2d 586 (In re Joseph H.) 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 Joseph H., 211 A.D.2d 586, 621 N.Y.S.2d 873 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Rhoda Cohen, J.), entered August 5, 1994, extending placement of the subject infant for a period of twelve months pursuant to Family Court Act § 1055, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent-appellant’s counsel appeared on her behalf at the time the extension of placement was ordered by the Family Court Judge on August 5, 1994, and failed to raise any issue of timeliness in the filing of the petition by the presentment agency or of notice to appellant; nor did counsel raise any issue of lack of jurisdiction over appellant. Thus, we deem appellant to have waived any objection to the nonconformance with the statute concerning filing, notice and service of the petition. We find that the best interests of the child were served by the extension of the child’s placement.

We have examined appellant’s other contentions and find them without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman and Ross, JJ.

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

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Rhoda Cohen, J.), entered August 5, 1994, extending placement of the subject infant for a period of twelve months pursuant to Family Court Act § 1055, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent-appellant’s counsel appeared on her behalf at the time the extension of placement was ordered by the Family Court Judge on August 5, 1994, and failed to raise any issue of timeliness in the filing of the petition by the presentment agency or of notice to appellant; nor did counsel raise any issue of lack of jurisdiction over appellant. Thus, we deem appellant to have waived any objection to the nonconformance with the statute concerning filing, notice and service of the petition. We find that the best interests of the child were served by the extension of the child’s placement.

We have examined appellant’s other contentions and find them without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman and Ross, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

211 A.D.2d 586, 621 N.Y.S.2d 873, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-joseph-h-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack