In re Katy Z.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Katy Z.

265 A.D.2d 932, 695 N.Y.S.2d 808

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

DecidedOctober 1, 1999

DocketAppeal No. 1

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 265 A.D.2d 932 (In re Katy Z.) 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 Katy Z., 265 A.D.2d 932, 695 N.Y.S.2d 808 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Respondents contend that Family Court erred in failing to dismiss the petition for an extension of placement because it was not filed more than 60 days before the expiration of the prior placement order. Because respondents never raised the timeliness issue in Family Court, their contention has not been preserved for our review (see, Matter of Joseph H., 211 AD2d 586). We further conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the best interests of the child were served by the extension of placement (see generally, Matter of Nassar v Santmire, 99 AD2d 377, 380). (Appeals from Order of Erie County Family Court, Dillon, J. — Placement.) Present — Law-ton, J. P., Hayes, Pigott, Jr., Hurlbutt and Scudder, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Respondents contend that Family Court erred in failing to dismiss the petition for an extension of placement because it was not filed more than 60 days before the expiration of the prior placement order. Because respondents never raised the timeliness issue in Family Court, their contention has not been preserved for our review (see, Matter of Joseph H., 211 AD2d 586). We further conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the best interests of the child were served by the extension of placement (see generally, Matter of Nassar v Santmire, 99 AD2d 377, 380). (Appeals from Order of Erie County Family Court, Dillon, J. — Placement.) Present — Law-ton, J. P., Hayes, Pigott, Jr., Hurlbutt and Scudder, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

265 A.D.2d 932, 695 N.Y.S.2d 808, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-katy-z-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack