In re Krystal F.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Krystal F.

68 A.D.3d 670, 892 N.Y.2d 87

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

DecidedDecember 29, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 68 A.D.3d 670 (In re Krystal F.) 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 Krystal F., 68 A.D.3d 670, 892 N.Y.2d 87 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

On or about March 12, 2009, the Family Court issued a dispositional order, placing custody of the child with her father, and no appeal has been taken from this order. Ordinarily, the right of direct appeal from an intermediate order terminates with entry of a judgment (see Matter of Aho, 39 NY2d 241, 248 [1976]). However, this Court has jurisdiction to hear this appeal since “[a]n appeal from an intermediate or final order in a case involving abuse or neglect may be taken as of right” (Family Ct Act § 1112 [a]; but see Matter of Leah F., 61 AD3d 535 [1st Dept 2009]).

The finding of neglect was not supported by a preponderance of the evidence (Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [B]; § 1046 [b] [i]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Catterson, Moskowitz, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

On or about March 12, 2009, the Family Court issued a dispositional order, placing custody of the child with her father, and no appeal has been taken from this order. Ordinarily, the right of direct appeal from an intermediate order terminates with entry of a judgment (see Matter of Aho, 39 NY2d 241, 248 [1976]). However, this Court has jurisdiction to hear this appeal since “[a]n appeal from an intermediate or final order in a case involving abuse or neglect may be taken as of right” (Family Ct Act § 1112 [a]; but see Matter of Leah F., 61 AD3d 535 [1st Dept 2009]).

The finding of neglect was not supported by a preponderance of the evidence (Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [B]; § 1046 [b] [i]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Catterson, Moskowitz, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

68 A.D.3d 670, 892 N.Y.2d 87, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-krystal-f-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack