In re Keyevon Justice P.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Keyevon Justice P.

90 A.D.3d 477, 935 N.Y.2d 13

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

DecidedDecember 13, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 90 A.D.3d 477 (In re Keyevon Justice P.) 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 Keyevon Justice P., 90 A.D.3d 477, 935 N.Y.2d 13 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Clear and convincing evidence shows, among other things, that respondent had no contact with the children for two years before the filing of the petition. Under the circumstances, Family Court providently exercised its discretion in denying respondent’s request for a dispositional hearing after the finding of abandonment (see Matter of “Male” G., 30 AD3d 337, 338 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 711 [2006]). Respondent’s belated argument that she is engaged in services and has an alternative plan for the children is unavailing.

Family Court properly denied the maternal grandmother’s custody petition. The children had not expressed a desire to see the mother’s side of the family, and the grandmother has no preemptive statutory or constitutional right to custody (Matter of Peter L., 59 NY2d 513, 520 [1983]). Concur — Gonzalez, EJ., Friedman, Moskowitz, Acosta and Richter, JJ.

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

Clear and convincing evidence shows, among other things, that respondent had no contact with the children for two years before the filing of the petition. Under the circumstances, Family Court providently exercised its discretion in denying respondent’s request for a dispositional hearing after the finding of abandonment (see Matter of “Male” G., 30 AD3d 337, 338 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 711 [2006]). Respondent’s belated argument that she is engaged in services and has an alternative plan for the children is unavailing.

Family Court properly denied the maternal grandmother’s custody petition. The children had not expressed a desire to see the mother’s side of the family, and the grandmother has no preemptive statutory or constitutional right to custody (Matter of Peter L., 59 NY2d 513, 520 [1983]). Concur — Gonzalez, EJ., Friedman, Moskowitz, Acosta and Richter, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

90 A.D.3d 477, 935 N.Y.2d 13, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-keyevon-justice-p-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack