In re Marcus C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Marcus C.

212 A.D.2d 1054, 624 N.Y.S.2d 1008, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1964

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 3, 1995·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Family Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in extending respondent’s placement for a period of 12 months (see, Family Ct Act § 355.3; Matter of Percy H., 159 AD2d 623). The record supports the court’s determination that petitioner proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the extension [1055] of placement would both protect society and be in the best interests of respondent (see, Family Ct Act § 352.2 [2]; Matter of Miguel R, 178 AD2d 1026; Matter of Percy H., supra). Contrary to the contention of respondent, the court, in making its determination, properly considered the failure of respondent’s mother to participate in the counseling services that petitioner had made available to her (see, Family Ct Act § 355.3 [4] [i]). (Appeal from Order of Oneida County Family Court, Cook, J.—Extension of Placement.) Present—Green, J. P., Pine, Callahan, Doerr and Davis, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Family Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in extending respondent’s placement for a period of 12 months (see, Family Ct Act § 355.3; Matter of Percy H., 159 AD2d 623). The record supports the court’s determination that petitioner proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the extension [1055] of placement would both protect society and be in the best interests of respondent (see, Family Ct Act § 352.2 [2]; Matter of Miguel R, 178 AD2d 1026; Matter of Percy H., supra). Contrary to the contention of respondent, the court, in making its determination, properly considered the failure of respondent’s mother to participate in the counseling services that petitioner had made available to her (see, Family Ct Act § 355.3 [4] [i]). (Appeal from Order of Oneida County Family Court, Cook, J.—Extension of Placement.) Present—Green, J. P., Pine, Callahan, Doerr and Davis, JJ.

In re Marcus C., 212 A.D.2d 1054, 624 N.Y.S.2d 1008, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1964 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

212 A.D.2d 1054 (In re Marcus C.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related