In re Richard HH.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Richard HH.

205 A.D.2d 988, 614 N.Y.S.2d 935, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6745

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

DecidedJune 30, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 205 A.D.2d 988 (In re Richard HH.) 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 HH., 205 A.D.2d 988, 614 N.Y.S.2d 935, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6745 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeals from two orders of the Family Court of Saratoga County (Ferradino, J.), entered July 13, 1993, which adjourned in contemplation of dismissal [989]*989petitioner’s applications, in two proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, to adjudicate respondents’ children to be neglected.

Upon review of the record, we conclude that Family Court did not err in adjourning the matter in contemplation of dismissal. The record indicates that, while the Law Guardian did express concern over the use of an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal, he nevertheless tacitly consented to such an order. All other issues raised by the parties are either moot or have been rendered academic by the court’s decision herein.

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Crew III, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the orders are affirmed, without costs.

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

Appeals from two orders of the Family Court of Saratoga County (Ferradino, J.), entered July 13, 1993, which adjourned in contemplation of dismissal [989]*989petitioner’s applications, in two proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, to adjudicate respondents’ children to be neglected.

Upon review of the record, we conclude that Family Court did not err in adjourning the matter in contemplation of dismissal. The record indicates that, while the Law Guardian did express concern over the use of an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal, he nevertheless tacitly consented to such an order. All other issues raised by the parties are either moot or have been rendered academic by the court’s decision herein.

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Crew III, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the orders are affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

205 A.D.2d 988, 614 N.Y.S.2d 935, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6745, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-richard-hh-nyappdiv-1994.