In re Nathanal C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Nathanal C.

78 A.D.3d 939, 910 N.Y.S.2d 677

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

DecidedNovember 16, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 78 A.D.3d 939 (In re Nathanal C.) 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 Nathanal C., 78 A.D.3d 939, 910 N.Y.S.2d 677 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

In two related child protective proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, Mandy C. and Dimas C. separately appeal from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Tally, J.), dated October 8, 2009, which, after a hearing pursuánt to Family Ct Act § 1028, denied their separate motions for the return of the subject children to their custody during the pendency of the proceeding.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

[940]*940Contrary to the appellants’ contentions, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in denying their separate motions pursuant to Family Ct Act § 1028 to return the subject children to their custody during the pendency of the proceeding. There was sufficient evidence presented at the hearing that the children’s emotional, mental, and physical health would be at imminent risk if they were returned to the appellants’ care (see Family Ct Act § 1028). Under the circumstances of this case, we agree with the Family Court’s determination not to return the children to the appellants’ custody until additional facts are adduced at a full fact-finding hearing (see Matter of Xavier J., 47 AD3d 815 [2008]; Matter of Janih M., 8 AD3d 384 [2004]; see also Nicholson v Scoppetta, 3 NY3d 357 [2004]).

The appellants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.P., Angiolillo, Roman and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

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

In two related child protective proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, Mandy C. and Dimas C. separately appeal from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Tally, J.), dated October 8, 2009, which, after a hearing pursuánt to Family Ct Act § 1028, denied their separate motions for the return of the subject children to their custody during the pendency of the proceeding.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

[940]*940Contrary to the appellants’ contentions, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in denying their separate motions pursuant to Family Ct Act § 1028 to return the subject children to their custody during the pendency of the proceeding. There was sufficient evidence presented at the hearing that the children’s emotional, mental, and physical health would be at imminent risk if they were returned to the appellants’ care (see Family Ct Act § 1028). Under the circumstances of this case, we agree with the Family Court’s determination not to return the children to the appellants’ custody until additional facts are adduced at a full fact-finding hearing (see Matter of Xavier J., 47 AD3d 815 [2008]; Matter of Janih M., 8 AD3d 384 [2004]; see also Nicholson v Scoppetta, 3 NY3d 357 [2004]).

The appellants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.P., Angiolillo, Roman and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 A.D.3d 939, 910 N.Y.S.2d 677, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-nathanal-c-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack