In re Richard D.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Richard D.

247 A.D.2d 472, 667 N.Y.S.2d 954, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1037

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

DecidedFebruary 9, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 247 A.D.2d 472 (In re Richard D.) 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 Richard D., 247 A.D.2d 472, 667 N.Y.S.2d 954, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1037 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to the Family Court Act, article 10, the Law Guardian appeals from so much of an order of the Family Court, Westchester County (Braslow, J.), dated February 13, 1997, as denied those branches of her motion which were to hold the County respondents in contempt, and the County respondents cross-appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of the same order as denied those branches of their cross motion which were for the imposition of a sanction, and for costs and attorneys fees.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The conduct of the County respondents cannot be . properly [473]*473characterized as constituting a contempt of the directives of the court (see, McCain v Dinkins, 84 NY2d 216; Matter of Department of Envtl. Protection v Department of Envtl. Conservation, 70 NY2d 233; Matter of Nelson v Nelson, 194 AD2d 828; Matter of Fishel v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 172 AD2d 835).

The Law Guardian has not engaged in frivolous conduct either before the trial court or on appeal such as would warrant the imposition of a sanction (see, 22 NYCRR 130-1.1; Breslaw v Breslaw, 209 AD2d 662).

Bracken, J. P., Rosenblatt, Ritter and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to the Family Court Act, article 10, the Law Guardian appeals from so much of an order of the Family Court, Westchester County (Braslow, J.), dated February 13, 1997, as denied those branches of her motion which were to hold the County respondents in contempt, and the County respondents cross-appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of the same order as denied those branches of their cross motion which were for the imposition of a sanction, and for costs and attorneys fees.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The conduct of the County respondents cannot be . properly [473]*473characterized as constituting a contempt of the directives of the court (see, McCain v Dinkins, 84 NY2d 216; Matter of Department of Envtl. Protection v Department of Envtl. Conservation, 70 NY2d 233; Matter of Nelson v Nelson, 194 AD2d 828; Matter of Fishel v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 172 AD2d 835).

The Law Guardian has not engaged in frivolous conduct either before the trial court or on appeal such as would warrant the imposition of a sanction (see, 22 NYCRR 130-1.1; Breslaw v Breslaw, 209 AD2d 662).

Bracken, J. P., Rosenblatt, Ritter and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

247 A.D.2d 472, 667 N.Y.S.2d 954, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1037, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-richard-d-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack