In re Paul J.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Paul J.

6 A.D.3d 709, 775 N.Y.S.2d 373, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4905

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

DecidedApril 26, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by17 cases

This text of 6 A.D.3d 709 (In re Paul J.) 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 Paul J., 6 A.D.3d 709, 775 N.Y.S.2d 373, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4905 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

[710]*710In three related child neglect proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the mother appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of (1) three fact-finding orders of the Family Court, Queens County (Salinitro, J.), all dated October 30, 2002 (one as to each child), as found, after a hearing, that she neglected the subject children, and (2) three orders of disposition of the same court, all dated March 4, 2003 (one as to each child), as, in effect, adjudicated that the subject children were neglected by her.

Ordered that the appeals from the fact-finding orders are dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as those orders were superseded by the orders of disposition; and it is further,

Ordered that the orders of disposition are affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the mother’s contention, the Family Court’s determination that she neglected her children is supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act § 1046 [b]; Matter of Noemi B., 273 AD2d 304 [2000]). The testimony of two caseworkers for the petitioner, two police officers, and the mother herself, demonstrated that the mother and the children resided in unsanitary and unsafe conditions, without sufficient food (see Family Ct Act § 1012 [f]; Matter of Noemi B., supra; Matter of Lillian R., 196 AD2d 503 [1993]). The evidence at the fact-finding hearing also established that the mother had possessed about 78 packets of crack cocaine and that she packaged and sold narcotics in the presence of the children. The mother’s conduct, placing the children in near proximity to accessible narcotics and to the very dangerous activity of narcotics trafficking, posed an imminent danger to the children’s physical, mental, and emotional well-being (see Matter of Michael R., 309 AD2d 590 [2003]).

The mother’s remaining contention is without merit. S. Miller, J.E, Luciano, Adams and Cozier, JJ., concur.

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

[710]*710In three related child neglect proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the mother appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of (1) three fact-finding orders of the Family Court, Queens County (Salinitro, J.), all dated October 30, 2002 (one as to each child), as found, after a hearing, that she neglected the subject children, and (2) three orders of disposition of the same court, all dated March 4, 2003 (one as to each child), as, in effect, adjudicated that the subject children were neglected by her.

Ordered that the appeals from the fact-finding orders are dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as those orders were superseded by the orders of disposition; and it is further,

Ordered that the orders of disposition are affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the mother’s contention, the Family Court’s determination that she neglected her children is supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act § 1046 [b]; Matter of Noemi B., 273 AD2d 304 [2000]). The testimony of two caseworkers for the petitioner, two police officers, and the mother herself, demonstrated that the mother and the children resided in unsanitary and unsafe conditions, without sufficient food (see Family Ct Act § 1012 [f]; Matter of Noemi B., supra; Matter of Lillian R., 196 AD2d 503 [1993]). The evidence at the fact-finding hearing also established that the mother had possessed about 78 packets of crack cocaine and that she packaged and sold narcotics in the presence of the children. The mother’s conduct, placing the children in near proximity to accessible narcotics and to the very dangerous activity of narcotics trafficking, posed an imminent danger to the children’s physical, mental, and emotional well-being (see Matter of Michael R., 309 AD2d 590 [2003]).

The mother’s remaining contention is without merit. S. Miller, J.E, Luciano, Adams and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 A.D.3d 709, 775 N.Y.S.2d 373, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4905, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-paul-j-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack