In re Michael O.F.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Michael O.F.

101 A.D.3d 1121, 955 N.Y.2d 895

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

DecidedDecember 26, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 101 A.D.3d 1121 (In re Michael O.F.) 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 Michael O.F., 101 A.D.3d 1121, 955 N.Y.2d 895 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

[1122]*1122A person is aggrieved within the meaning of CPLR 5511 “when he or she asks for relief but that relief is denied in whole or in part,” or, when someone “asks for relief against him or her, which the person opposes, and the relief is granted in whole or in part” (Mixon v TBV, Inc., 76 AD3d 144, 156-157 [2010] [emphasis omitted]; see Matter of Matthew L., 85 AD3d 917 [2011]; Mahmood v Gutman, 81 AD3d 792 [2011]). Applying these principles to the matter before us, the appellant is not aggrieved by the order directing the State Office of Children and Family Services or Lincoln Hall to notify the petitioner, Administration for Children’s Services, when the child Joseph O.A. is released from its custody, and, accordingly, her appeal must be dismissed. Eng, P.J., Angiolillo, Sgroi and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.

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

[1122]*1122A person is aggrieved within the meaning of CPLR 5511 “when he or she asks for relief but that relief is denied in whole or in part,” or, when someone “asks for relief against him or her, which the person opposes, and the relief is granted in whole or in part” (Mixon v TBV, Inc., 76 AD3d 144, 156-157 [2010] [emphasis omitted]; see Matter of Matthew L., 85 AD3d 917 [2011]; Mahmood v Gutman, 81 AD3d 792 [2011]). Applying these principles to the matter before us, the appellant is not aggrieved by the order directing the State Office of Children and Family Services or Lincoln Hall to notify the petitioner, Administration for Children’s Services, when the child Joseph O.A. is released from its custody, and, accordingly, her appeal must be dismissed. Eng, P.J., Angiolillo, Sgroi and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

101 A.D.3d 1121, 955 N.Y.2d 895, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-michael-of-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack