In re Kirk V.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Kirk V.

60 A.D.3d 427, 874 N.Y.S.2d 445

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

DecidedMarch 5, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 60 A.D.3d 427 (In re Kirk V.) 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 Kirk V., 60 A.D.3d 427, 874 N.Y.S.2d 445 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Family Court, New York County (Jody Adams, J.), entered on or about October 15, 2007, which, after a fact-finding hearing on remand, dismissed the neglect petition of the Administration for Children’s Services on the ground that the aid of the court was not required, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The Family Court properly determined that the aid of the court was not required (see Family Ct Act § 1051 [cl). At the time of the fact-finding, the person alleged to be a danger to the child had not lived or visited the family home for over four years before the court’s decision was issued, and petitioner failed to articulate what disposition it was seeking and what court action would be required for Kirk’s safety.

Were we to consider the charges, we would find that petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence its allegation that respondent parents neglected Kirk V. by failing to protect him from sexual abuse by his older brother. Concur— Tom, J.P., Moskowitz, Renwick and Freedman, JJ.

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

Order, Family Court, New York County (Jody Adams, J.), entered on or about October 15, 2007, which, after a fact-finding hearing on remand, dismissed the neglect petition of the Administration for Children’s Services on the ground that the aid of the court was not required, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The Family Court properly determined that the aid of the court was not required (see Family Ct Act § 1051 [cl). At the time of the fact-finding, the person alleged to be a danger to the child had not lived or visited the family home for over four years before the court’s decision was issued, and petitioner failed to articulate what disposition it was seeking and what court action would be required for Kirk’s safety.

Were we to consider the charges, we would find that petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence its allegation that respondent parents neglected Kirk V. by failing to protect him from sexual abuse by his older brother. Concur— Tom, J.P., Moskowitz, Renwick and Freedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

60 A.D.3d 427, 874 N.Y.S.2d 445, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-kirk-v-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack