In re Ramon G.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Ramon G.

49 A.D.2d 764, 374 N.Y.S.2d 1019, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10753

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

DecidedSeptember 29, 1975

StatusPublished

This text of 49 A.D.2d 764 (In re Ramon G.) 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 Ramon G., 49 A.D.2d 764, 374 N.Y.S.2d 1019, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10753 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding to approve a certain instrument and transfer of a child to the custody of the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York (Social Services Law, § 358-a), the appeal is from an order of the Family Court, Kings County, dated March 11, 1974, which dismissed the petition as untimely. Order reversed, without costs, and proceeding remanded to the Family Court for further consideration in light of the holding in Matter of Lydia H. (77 Misc 2d 807). The foregoing should not, however, be construed as indicating that we condone petitioner’s failure to abide by the time limit set forth in subdivision (1) of section 358-a of the Social Services Law. Rabin, Acting P. J., Latham, Cohalan, Margett and Christ, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding to approve a certain instrument and transfer of a child to the custody of the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York (Social Services Law, § 358-a), the appeal is from an order of the Family Court, Kings County, dated March 11, 1974, which dismissed the petition as untimely. Order reversed, without costs, and proceeding remanded to the Family Court for further consideration in light of the holding in Matter of Lydia H. (77 Misc 2d 807). The foregoing should not, however, be construed as indicating that we condone petitioner’s failure to abide by the time limit set forth in subdivision (1) of section 358-a of the Social Services Law. Rabin, Acting P. J., Latham, Cohalan, Margett and Christ, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 A.D.2d 764, 374 N.Y.S.2d 1019, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10753, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-ramon-g-nyappdiv-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack