In re Kenneth S.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Kenneth S.

115 A.D.3d 961, 982 N.Y.S.2d 528

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

DecidedMarch 26, 2014

StatusPublished

This text of 115 A.D.3d 961 (In re Kenneth 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 Kenneth S., 115 A.D.3d 961, 982 N.Y.S.2d 528 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

In two related child neglect proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Anixiadis, Ct. Atty. Ref.), dated October 28, 2011, which denied her motion pursuant to Family Court Act § 1061 to vacate a “final order of custody” of the same court dated October 15, 2010.

Ordered that the order dated October 28, 2011, is reversed, [962]*962on the law, without costs or disbursements, the motion to vacate the “final order of custody” dated October 15, 2010, is granted, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Queens County, for further proceedings in accordance herewith; and it is further,

Ordered that pending final determination of this matter, the subject children shall remain with Kenneth S.

As the mother argues, and as the Administration for Children’s Services correctly concedes, the “final order of custody,” awarding custody of the subject children to the father, who did not petition for custody, was an unauthorized disposition of the neglect proceedings commenced pursuant to Family Court Act article 10 (see Family Ct Act §§ 1052, 1061). Thus, the Family Court erred in denying the mother’s motion to vacate that order, and the matter must be remitted to the Family Court, Queens County, for further proceedings which, under the circumstances of this case, should include a dispositional hearing and determination thereafter of the neglect proceedings and, if custody petitions are filed, hearings relating to those petitions (see Matter of Tristram K., 25 AD3d 222 [2005]; Matter of Diaz v Santiago, 8 AD3d 562 [2004]).

Additionally, under the facts of this case, pending final determination of this matter, the children shall remain in the custody of the father.

In light of our determination, we need not reach the mother’s remaining contentions.

Balkin, J.E, Sgroi, Cohen and LaSalle, JJ., concur.

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

In two related child neglect proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Anixiadis, Ct. Atty. Ref.), dated October 28, 2011, which denied her motion pursuant to Family Court Act § 1061 to vacate a “final order of custody” of the same court dated October 15, 2010.

Ordered that the order dated October 28, 2011, is reversed, [962]*962on the law, without costs or disbursements, the motion to vacate the “final order of custody” dated October 15, 2010, is granted, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Queens County, for further proceedings in accordance herewith; and it is further,

Ordered that pending final determination of this matter, the subject children shall remain with Kenneth S.

As the mother argues, and as the Administration for Children’s Services correctly concedes, the “final order of custody,” awarding custody of the subject children to the father, who did not petition for custody, was an unauthorized disposition of the neglect proceedings commenced pursuant to Family Court Act article 10 (see Family Ct Act §§ 1052, 1061). Thus, the Family Court erred in denying the mother’s motion to vacate that order, and the matter must be remitted to the Family Court, Queens County, for further proceedings which, under the circumstances of this case, should include a dispositional hearing and determination thereafter of the neglect proceedings and, if custody petitions are filed, hearings relating to those petitions (see Matter of Tristram K., 25 AD3d 222 [2005]; Matter of Diaz v Santiago, 8 AD3d 562 [2004]).

Additionally, under the facts of this case, pending final determination of this matter, the children shall remain in the custody of the father.

In light of our determination, we need not reach the mother’s remaining contentions.

Balkin, J.E, Sgroi, Cohen and LaSalle, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

115 A.D.3d 961, 982 N.Y.S.2d 528, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-kenneth-s-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack