In re Mary UU.

70 A.D.3d 1227, 893 N.Y.S.2d 908
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 18, 2010
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 70 A.D.3d 1227 (In re Mary UU.) 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 Mary UU., 70 A.D.3d 1227, 893 N.Y.S.2d 908 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Opinion

Peters, J.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Broome County (Charnetsky, J.), entered May 14, 2009, which, among [1228]*1228other things, granted petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act article 10, to adjudicate the subject children to be neglected.

Petitioner commenced this neglect proceeding alleging, among other things, that respondent Michael UU. (hereinafter respondent) used and was under the influence of controlled substances while caring for the subject children (born in 1995 and 1997). Thereafter, with the assistance of counsel, respondent admitted to certain allegations contained in the petition, including that he was a person legally responsible for the children’s care, and consented to both a finding that he neglected the children and Family Court’s disposition. Respondent now appeals, arguing that he is not a person legally responsible for the children’s care within the meaning of Family Court Act § 1012 (a) and (g).

Because no appeal lies from an order entered on consent, this appeal must be dismissed (see Matter of Michael CC., 216 AD2d 740 [1995]; see also Matter of Fantasia Y., 45 AD3d 1215, 1216 [2007] ). To the extent that respondent argues that his consent was not knowing, intelligent or voluntary, he failed to make an application in Family Court to vacate the order (see Family Ct Act § 1051 [f]; § 1061; Matter of Brittany T., 48 AD3d 995, 996 [2008] ).

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

Related

Matter of Natalee M. (Nathan M.)
2017 NY Slip Op 8418 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Matter of Alexa v. (Antonio v.
130 A.D.3d 838 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Matter of Abigail R. (Ishwardat R.)
125 A.D.3d 780 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
MatterofConnorS.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014
In re Connor S.
122 A.D.3d 1096 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
In re Gabrielle S.
105 A.D.3d 1098 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
In re Connor CC.
99 A.D.3d 1127 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
In re Selena O.
84 A.D.3d 1648 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Wiebke v. Wiebke
77 A.D.3d 964 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
DeFrancesco v. Mushtare
77 A.D.3d 1079 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
In re Bianca QQ.
75 A.D.3d 679 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Marshall v. Haas
74 A.D.3d 1593 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
70 A.D.3d 1227, 893 N.Y.S.2d 908, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-mary-uu-nyappdiv-2010.