In re Kristen B.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Kristen B.

203 A.D.2d 945, 612 N.Y.S.2d 714

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

DecidedApril 15, 1994

DocketAppeal No. 1

StatusPublished

This text of 203 A.D.2d 945 (In re Kristen B.) 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 Kristen B., 203 A.D.2d 945, 612 N.Y.S.2d 714 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: We affirm the order of Family Court for reasons stated in the decision at Monroe County Family Court (Taddeo, J.). We add only that the duration of the hearing and the passage of time before Family Court’s decision did not deprive respondent of due process of law in the absence of a showing of "substantial prejudice” (Matter of Sarkisian Bros. v State Div. of Human Rights, 48 NY2d 816, 818). The mere passage of time, without some showing of "actual injury”, does not constitute substantial prejudice (Matter of Sarkisian Bros. v State Div. of Hu[946]*946man Rights, supra, at 818). In light of the circumstances, Family Court properly denied respondent’s motion for a further physical examination of Kristen (see, Matter of Jessica R., 78 NY2d 1031, 1033-1035). (Appeal from Order of Monroe County Family Court, Taddeo, J. — Child Abuse.) Present— Green, J. P., Pine, Lawton, Callahan and Boehm, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: We affirm the order of Family Court for reasons stated in the decision at Monroe County Family Court (Taddeo, J.). We add only that the duration of the hearing and the passage of time before Family Court’s decision did not deprive respondent of due process of law in the absence of a showing of "substantial prejudice” (Matter of Sarkisian Bros. v State Div. of Human Rights, 48 NY2d 816, 818). The mere passage of time, without some showing of "actual injury”, does not constitute substantial prejudice (Matter of Sarkisian Bros. v State Div. of Hu[946]*946man Rights, supra, at 818). In light of the circumstances, Family Court properly denied respondent’s motion for a further physical examination of Kristen (see, Matter of Jessica R., 78 NY2d 1031, 1033-1035). (Appeal from Order of Monroe County Family Court, Taddeo, J. — Child Abuse.) Present— Green, J. P., Pine, Lawton, Callahan and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

203 A.D.2d 945, 612 N.Y.S.2d 714, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-kristen-b-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack