In re Juatina S.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Juatina S.

239 A.D.2d 929, 661 N.Y.S.2d 802, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6304

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

DecidedMay 30, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 239 A.D.2d 929 (In re Juatina S.) 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 Juatina S., 239 A.D.2d 929, 661 N.Y.S.2d 802, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6304 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Family Court properly proceeded with the dispositional hearing in respondent’s absence. Respondent was aware of the adjourned date and thus forfeited any right she had to be present (see, Matter of Michael Dennis C., 121 AD2d 535, 536, lv denied 68 NY2d 611). The record does not support the contention that respondent’s absence was procured by petitioner. The witness for petitioner testified that respondent "wanted a bus ticket” to go to Rochester to attend a drug rehabilitation program. The witness did not testify that she gave respondent a ticket, and there was no evidence that respondent was at the drug rehabilitation program at the time of the dispositional hearing. (Appeal from Order of Onondaga County Family Court, Bersani, J.—Terminate Parental Rights.) Present—Denman, P. J., Green, Balio, Boehm and Fallon, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Family Court properly proceeded with the dispositional hearing in respondent’s absence. Respondent was aware of the adjourned date and thus forfeited any right she had to be present (see, Matter of Michael Dennis C., 121 AD2d 535, 536, lv denied 68 NY2d 611). The record does not support the contention that respondent’s absence was procured by petitioner. The witness for petitioner testified that respondent "wanted a bus ticket” to go to Rochester to attend a drug rehabilitation program. The witness did not testify that she gave respondent a ticket, and there was no evidence that respondent was at the drug rehabilitation program at the time of the dispositional hearing. (Appeal from Order of Onondaga County Family Court, Bersani, J.—Terminate Parental Rights.) Present—Denman, P. J., Green, Balio, Boehm and Fallon, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

239 A.D.2d 929, 661 N.Y.S.2d 802, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6304, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-juatina-s-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack