In re Malachi I.L.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Malachi I.L.

118 A.D.3d 555, 987 N.Y.S.2d 157

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

DecidedJune 17, 2014

StatusPublished

This text of 118 A.D.3d 555 (In re Malachi I.L.) 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 Malachi I.L., 118 A.D.3d 555, 987 N.Y.S.2d 157 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Orders, Family Court, Bronx County (Linda Tally, J.), entered on or about May 28, 2013, which denied petitioner’s motion to vacate conditional surrenders she executed pursuant to Social Services Law § 383-c with respect to the four subject children, and dismissed the petitions, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion to vacate the surrenders was properly denied. Petitioner failed to allege that her execution of the agreements was the product of fraud, duress or coercion (see Matter of Amanda B., 206 AD2d 636 [3d Dept 1994]; Social Services Law § 383-c), and contrary to petitioner’s argument, she was not deprived of due process on the basis that the matter was disposed of without a hearing (see e.g. Matter of Baby Boy Joseph, 214 AD2d 1049 [4th Dept 1995]).

We have considered petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

Concur — Sweeny, J.E, Renwick, Andrias, Richter and Kapnick, JJ.

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

Orders, Family Court, Bronx County (Linda Tally, J.), entered on or about May 28, 2013, which denied petitioner’s motion to vacate conditional surrenders she executed pursuant to Social Services Law § 383-c with respect to the four subject children, and dismissed the petitions, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion to vacate the surrenders was properly denied. Petitioner failed to allege that her execution of the agreements was the product of fraud, duress or coercion (see Matter of Amanda B., 206 AD2d 636 [3d Dept 1994]; Social Services Law § 383-c), and contrary to petitioner’s argument, she was not deprived of due process on the basis that the matter was disposed of without a hearing (see e.g. Matter of Baby Boy Joseph, 214 AD2d 1049 [4th Dept 1995]).

We have considered petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

Concur — Sweeny, J.E, Renwick, Andrias, Richter and Kapnick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

118 A.D.3d 555, 987 N.Y.S.2d 157, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-malachi-il-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack