In re Julia M.G.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Julia M.G.

130 A.D.3d 1027, 13 N.Y.S.3d 842

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

DecidedJuly 29, 2015

StatusPublished

This text of 130 A.D.3d 1027 (In re Julia M.G.) 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 Julia M.G., 130 A.D.3d 1027, 13 N.Y.S.3d 842 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Elaine Jackson Stack, J.), dated August 5, 2014. The order granted the petition of Trinidad G. for guardianship of the subject child.

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

Contrary to the intervenor-appellant’s contention, the Fam[1028]*1028ily Court’s determination that the subject child’s best interests would be served by the appointment of the petitioner, who is the child’s maternal aunt, as her guardian has a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Deven Meza F. [Maria F.—Oneyda M.], 108 AD3d 701, 702 [2013]; cf. Matter of Diego F. [Magno V.], 84 AD3d 1373 [2011]).

The intervenor-appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Dillon, J.P., Chambers, Austin and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Elaine Jackson Stack, J.), dated August 5, 2014. The order granted the petition of Trinidad G. for guardianship of the subject child.

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

Contrary to the intervenor-appellant’s contention, the Fam[1028]*1028ily Court’s determination that the subject child’s best interests would be served by the appointment of the petitioner, who is the child’s maternal aunt, as her guardian has a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Deven Meza F. [Maria F.—Oneyda M.], 108 AD3d 701, 702 [2013]; cf. Matter of Diego F. [Magno V.], 84 AD3d 1373 [2011]).

The intervenor-appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Dillon, J.P., Chambers, Austin and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

130 A.D.3d 1027, 13 N.Y.S.3d 842, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-julia-mg-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack