In re Leticia Rose M.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Leticia Rose M.

54 A.D.2d 909, 388 N.Y.S.2d 28, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14745

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

DecidedNovember 1, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 54 A.D.2d 909 (In re Leticia Rose M.) 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 Leticia Rose M., 54 A.D.2d 909, 388 N.Y.S.2d 28, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14745 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

In two proceedings (one as to each child) pursuant to article 6 of the Family Court Act, the appeals, by the mother, are from two orders of the Family Court, Westchester County, both dated March 23, 1976, each of which, after a hearing, inter alia, adjudged an infant to be permanently neglected, and permanently terminated parental custody, "subject to and conditioned upon the institution of adoption proceedings” within a specified period of time. Orders afimned, without costs or disbursements. There was sufficient evidence to warrant the adjudications of permanent neglect and the terminations of parental custody within the purview of the pertinent provisions of article 6 of the Family Court Act. Moreover, we consider that the best interests of the children were served thereby (see Matter of Bennett v Jeffreys, 40 NY2d 543; Matter of Orlando F, 40 NY2d 103, 110). Hopkins, Acting P. J., Damiani, Rabin, Shapiro and Titone, JJ., concur.

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

In two proceedings (one as to each child) pursuant to article 6 of the Family Court Act, the appeals, by the mother, are from two orders of the Family Court, Westchester County, both dated March 23, 1976, each of which, after a hearing, inter alia, adjudged an infant to be permanently neglected, and permanently terminated parental custody, "subject to and conditioned upon the institution of adoption proceedings” within a specified period of time. Orders afimned, without costs or disbursements. There was sufficient evidence to warrant the adjudications of permanent neglect and the terminations of parental custody within the purview of the pertinent provisions of article 6 of the Family Court Act. Moreover, we consider that the best interests of the children were served thereby (see Matter of Bennett v Jeffreys, 40 NY2d 543; Matter of Orlando F, 40 NY2d 103, 110). Hopkins, Acting P. J., Damiani, Rabin, Shapiro and Titone, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 A.D.2d 909, 388 N.Y.S.2d 28, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14745, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-leticia-rose-m-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack