In re Marquel J.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Marquel J.

269 A.D.2d 396, 702 N.Y.S.2d 868, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1261

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

DecidedFebruary 7, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 269 A.D.2d 396 (In re Marquel J.) 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 Marquel J., 269 A.D.2d 396, 702 N.Y.S.2d 868, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1261 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In three related neglect proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the petitioner, Suffolk County Department of Social Services, appeals from an amended order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Pach, J.), entered August 16, 1999, which, after a hearing, directed that the children be returned to the respondent mother.

Ordered that the amended order is affirmed, with costs.

The petitioner did not meet its burden of establishing that the subject children should remain in its custody (see, Matter of Hiram V., 162 AD2d 453, 454; Besharov, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 29A, Family Ct Act § 1028, at 42-45). The evidence adduced at the hearing did not establish an imminent risk of harm to the children (see, Family Ct Act § 1028 [b]; Matter of Hiram V., supra). Under these circumstances the Family Court providently exercised its discretion. Mangano, P. J., Altman, Schmidt and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

—In three related neglect proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the petitioner, Suffolk County Department of Social Services, appeals from an amended order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Pach, J.), entered August 16, 1999, which, after a hearing, directed that the children be returned to the respondent mother.

Ordered that the amended order is affirmed, with costs.

The petitioner did not meet its burden of establishing that the subject children should remain in its custody (see, Matter of Hiram V., 162 AD2d 453, 454; Besharov, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 29A, Family Ct Act § 1028, at 42-45). The evidence adduced at the hearing did not establish an imminent risk of harm to the children (see, Family Ct Act § 1028 [b]; Matter of Hiram V., supra). Under these circumstances the Family Court providently exercised its discretion. Mangano, P. J., Altman, Schmidt and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

269 A.D.2d 396, 702 N.Y.S.2d 868, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1261, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-marquel-j-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack