In re R. & M. Children

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re R. & M. Children

228 A.D.2d 509, 643 N.Y.2d 1012, 643 N.Y.S.2d 1012, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6563

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

DecidedJune 10, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 228 A.D.2d 509 (In re R. & M. Children) 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 R. & M. Children, 228 A.D.2d 509, 643 N.Y.2d 1012, 643 N.Y.S.2d 1012, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6563 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the adjournments of the fact-finding hearing and the delays occasioned therein do not warrant dismissal of the petition and annulment of the fact-finding order. While we are mindful that unreasonable delays in Family Court proceedings should be avoided and adjournments granted in the course of such a proceeding should be for as short a time as is practicable (see, Family Ct Act § 1049; Matter of Dutchess County Dept. of Social Servs. [Cody M.—Mark M.], 196 AD2d 196), we decline to grant the appellant the relief requested, especially since he contributed, in part, to these delays. Balletta, J. P., Rosenblatt, Thompson and Copertino, JJ., concur.

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

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the adjournments of the fact-finding hearing and the delays occasioned therein do not warrant dismissal of the petition and annulment of the fact-finding order. While we are mindful that unreasonable delays in Family Court proceedings should be avoided and adjournments granted in the course of such a proceeding should be for as short a time as is practicable (see, Family Ct Act § 1049; Matter of Dutchess County Dept. of Social Servs. [Cody M.—Mark M.], 196 AD2d 196), we decline to grant the appellant the relief requested, especially since he contributed, in part, to these delays. Balletta, J. P., Rosenblatt, Thompson and Copertino, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

228 A.D.2d 509, 643 N.Y.2d 1012, 643 N.Y.S.2d 1012, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6563, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-r-m-children-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack