In re Rayshawn R.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Rayshawn R.

302 A.D.2d 937, 753 N.Y.S.2d 798, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 984

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

DecidedFebruary 7, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 302 A.D.2d 937 (In re Rayshawn R.) 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 Rayshawn R., 302 A.D.2d 937, 753 N.Y.S.2d 798, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 984 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of Family Court, Onondaga County (Hood, J.), entered December 19, 2000, which terminated respondent’s parental rights.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: We affirm the order, which terminated respondent’s parental rights, for reasons stated in the decision at Family Court, Onondaga County (Hood, J.). We add only that respondent’s contention that the court erred in failing to hold a dispositional hearing is without merit. A dispositional hearing pursuant to Family Ct Act § 625 (a) is not required where the parties waive their right to such a hearing (see Matter of Casondra W., 184 AD2d 1070, 1071; Matter of Rosa B., 161 AD2d 1152, 1153; Matter of Loretta OO., 114 AD2d 648, 649-650). In this case, counsel for respondent waived respondent’s right to such a hearing. Present — Green, J.P., Pine, Hurlbutt, Kehoe and Hayes, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of Family Court, Onondaga County (Hood, J.), entered December 19, 2000, which terminated respondent’s parental rights.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: We affirm the order, which terminated respondent’s parental rights, for reasons stated in the decision at Family Court, Onondaga County (Hood, J.). We add only that respondent’s contention that the court erred in failing to hold a dispositional hearing is without merit. A dispositional hearing pursuant to Family Ct Act § 625 (a) is not required where the parties waive their right to such a hearing (see Matter of Casondra W., 184 AD2d 1070, 1071; Matter of Rosa B., 161 AD2d 1152, 1153; Matter of Loretta OO., 114 AD2d 648, 649-650). In this case, counsel for respondent waived respondent’s right to such a hearing. Present — Green, J.P., Pine, Hurlbutt, Kehoe and Hayes, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

302 A.D.2d 937, 753 N.Y.S.2d 798, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 984, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-rayshawn-r-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack