In re Posinsky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Posinsky

14 A.D.2d 846, 220 N.Y.S.2d 888, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8049

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

DecidedNovember 9, 1961

StatusPublished

This text of 14 A.D.2d 846 (In re Posinsky) 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 Posinsky, 14 A.D.2d 846, 220 N.Y.S.2d 888, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8049 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

The abrogation of an adoption pursuant to section 116 of the Domestic Relations Law (now § 118) requires the consent of all interested parties. However, the Surrogate is not obliged to decree an abrogation merely because all the interested parties join in seeking such relief. The section also requires that the Surrogate be satisfied that the “ abrogation of the adoption * * * will be for the best interests of the foster child”. Looking to the facts of this case we conclude that the best interests of the child will be served by such abrogation and that, in the proper exercise of the Surrogate’s discretion, the petition should have been granted. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Valente and McNally, JJ.

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

The abrogation of an adoption pursuant to section 116 of the Domestic Relations Law (now § 118) requires the consent of all interested parties. However, the Surrogate is not obliged to decree an abrogation merely because all the interested parties join in seeking such relief. The section also requires that the Surrogate be satisfied that the “ abrogation of the adoption * * * will be for the best interests of the foster child”. Looking to the facts of this case we conclude that the best interests of the child will be served by such abrogation and that, in the proper exercise of the Surrogate’s discretion, the petition should have been granted. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Valente and McNally, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 A.D.2d 846, 220 N.Y.S.2d 888, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8049, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-posinsky-nyappdiv-1961.