In re Natalie L.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Natalie L.

79 A.D.3d 487, 911 N.Y.S.2d 629

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

DecidedDecember 9, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 79 A.D.3d 487 (In re Natalie L.) 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 Natalie L., 79 A.D.3d 487, 911 N.Y.S.2d 629 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Karen I. Lupuloff, J.), entered on or about April 27, 2010, which granted respondent mother Lisette A.’s application for the return of her child, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Fetitioner agency failed to demonstrate that return of the child posed a threat to her life or health (Family Ct Act § 1028 [a]; see Nicholson v Scoppetta, 3 NY3d 357 [2004]). Any im[488]*488minent risk to the child was eliminated by Family Court’s order which, among other things, directed an order of protection against respondent father Sean T., directed the mother and child to reside in a domestic violence shelter, required weekly visits from petitioner, and required the mother to avail herself of various services. Additionally, the court’s decision was in the child’s best interest in considering the harm inflicted on the child from her continued removal. Concur — Gonzalez, EJ., Saxe, Catterson, Acosta and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Karen I. Lupuloff, J.), entered on or about April 27, 2010, which granted respondent mother Lisette A.’s application for the return of her child, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Fetitioner agency failed to demonstrate that return of the child posed a threat to her life or health (Family Ct Act § 1028 [a]; see Nicholson v Scoppetta, 3 NY3d 357 [2004]). Any im[488]*488minent risk to the child was eliminated by Family Court’s order which, among other things, directed an order of protection against respondent father Sean T., directed the mother and child to reside in a domestic violence shelter, required weekly visits from petitioner, and required the mother to avail herself of various services. Additionally, the court’s decision was in the child’s best interest in considering the harm inflicted on the child from her continued removal. Concur — Gonzalez, EJ., Saxe, Catterson, Acosta and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

79 A.D.3d 487, 911 N.Y.S.2d 629, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-natalie-l-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack