In re Rebecca F.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Rebecca F.

286 A.D.2d 985, 730 N.Y.S.2d 918, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8947

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

DecidedSeptember 28, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 286 A.D.2d 985 (In re Rebecca F.) 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 Rebecca F., 286 A.D.2d 985, 730 N.Y.S.2d 918, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8947 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Respondent father appeals from an order revoking a suspended judgment of permanent neglect, terminating his parental rights and transferring custody of his child to petitioner. Contrary to the contention of respondent, Family Court’s finding after a hearing that he failed to comply with certain conditions of the suspended judgment is supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see, Matter of Gerald M., 112 AD2d 6; see also, Matter of Victor C., 284 AD2d 945; Matter of Ashley M. [appeal No. 1], 278 AD2d 892, Iv denied 96 NY2d 710). Thus, the court “did not improvidently exercise its discretion by revoking [the] suspended judgment” (Matter of La’Quan De’Vota H., 259 AD2d 486, 487). (Appeal from Order of Onondaga County Family Court, Griffith, J. — Terminate Parental Rights.) Present — Pine, J. P., Hayes, Hurlbutt, Burns and Gorski, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Respondent father appeals from an order revoking a suspended judgment of permanent neglect, terminating his parental rights and transferring custody of his child to petitioner. Contrary to the contention of respondent, Family Court’s finding after a hearing that he failed to comply with certain conditions of the suspended judgment is supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see, Matter of Gerald M., 112 AD2d 6; see also, Matter of Victor C., 284 AD2d 945; Matter of Ashley M. [appeal No. 1], 278 AD2d 892, Iv denied 96 NY2d 710). Thus, the court “did not improvidently exercise its discretion by revoking [the] suspended judgment” (Matter of La’Quan De’Vota H., 259 AD2d 486, 487). (Appeal from Order of Onondaga County Family Court, Griffith, J. — Terminate Parental Rights.) Present — Pine, J. P., Hayes, Hurlbutt, Burns and Gorski, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

286 A.D.2d 985, 730 N.Y.S.2d 918, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8947, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-rebecca-f-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack