In re Kenisha T.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Kenisha T.

267 A.D.2d 1065, 701 N.Y.S.2d 572, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13871

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 30, 1999·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Family Court properly dismissed the petition of respondent seeking to vacate an order finding him guilty of abusing his stepdaughter {see, Family Ct Act § 1012 [e] [iii]). In support of the petition, respondent contended that the court lacked jurisdiction to issue the order on the ground that, as the child’s stepfather, he was not a proper respondent. That contention does not provide a basis for vacatur of the order (see, Family Ct Act § 1061; cf., Matter of Chendo O., 193 AD2d 1083, 1084); respondent’s remedy was to have taken a timely appeal from that order (see, Family Ct Act § 1112 [a]; § 1113). In any event, respondent’s contention lacks merit (see, Family Ct Act § 1012 [a]). We have reviewed respondent’s remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit. (Appeal from Order of Oneida County Family Court, Cook, J. — Dismiss Pleading.) Present — Lawton, J. P., Hayes, Wisner, Hurlbutt and Balio, 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 dismissed the petition of respondent seeking to vacate an order finding him guilty of abusing his stepdaughter {see, Family Ct Act § 1012 [e] [iii]). In support of the petition, respondent contended that the court lacked jurisdiction to issue the order on the ground that, as the child’s stepfather, he was not a proper respondent. That contention does not provide a basis for vacatur of the order (see, Family Ct Act § 1061; cf., Matter of Chendo O., 193 AD2d 1083, 1084); respondent’s remedy was to have taken a timely appeal from that order (see, Family Ct Act § 1112 [a]; § 1113). In any event, respondent’s contention lacks merit (see, Family Ct Act § 1012 [a]). We have reviewed respondent’s remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit. (Appeal from Order of Oneida County Family Court, Cook, J. — Dismiss Pleading.) Present — Lawton, J. P., Hayes, Wisner, Hurlbutt and Balio, JJ.

In re Kenisha T., 267 A.D.2d 1065, 701 N.Y.S.2d 572, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13871 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

267 A.D.2d 1065 (In re Kenisha T.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related