In re Mollye S.

28 A.D.3d 487, 812 N.Y.S.2d 142
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 4, 2006
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 28 A.D.3d 487 (In re Mollye S.) 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 Mollye S., 28 A.D.3d 487, 812 N.Y.S.2d 142 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Opinion

In a child protective proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the father appeals (1) from a decision of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Genchi, J.), dated December 2, 2004, and (2), as limited by his brief, from stated portions of an order of disposition of the same court dated January 20, 2005, made after fact-finding and dispositional hearings, which, inter alia, found that he neglected the subject child and directed that he have only supervised and therapeutic visitation with the subject child. The appeal from the order of disposition brings up for review an “order of fact-finding and disposition” of the same court dated January 12, 2005.

Ordered that the appeal from the decision dated December 2, 2004, is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as no appeal lies from a decision (see Schicchi v J.A. Green Constr. Corp., 100 AD2d 509 [1984]); and it is further,

Ordered that the order of disposition dated January 20, 2005, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The finding of neglect against the father was supported by a [488]*488preponderance of the evidence which demonstrated that the subject child’s physical, mental, or emotional condition was impaired or was in imminent danger of becoming impaired as a result of the father’s behavior and mental illness (see Family Ct Act 1012 [f]; Matter of Angel Marie L., 5 AD3d 773 [2004]; Matter of Essence V., 283 AD2d 652 [2001]; Matter of Danielle M., 151 AD2d 240 [1989]).

The father’s remaining contentions are without merit. Krausman, J.P., Mastro, Fisher and Covello, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Matter of Kiemiyah M. (Cassiah M.)
137 A.D.3d 1279 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
In re Amber Gold J.
59 A.D.3d 719 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
28 A.D.3d 487, 812 N.Y.S.2d 142, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-mollye-s-nyappdiv-2006.