In re Rosalee D.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Rosalee D.

8 A.D.3d 562, 778 N.Y.S.2d 725, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8714

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

DecidedJune 21, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 8 A.D.3d 562 (In re Rosalee 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 Rosalee D., 8 A.D.3d 562, 778 N.Y.S.2d 725, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8714 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In four related child protective proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the mother appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Genchi, J.), entered April 16, 2003, as, after a hearing, found that she had neglected her four children.

Ordered that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The Family Court’s findings were established by a preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act § 1046 [b]; Matter of Nicole V., 71 NY2d 112 [1987]).

The mother’s remaining contention is without merit. Santucci, J.P., Schmidt, Rivera and Lifson, JJ., concur.

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

In four related child protective proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the mother appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Genchi, J.), entered April 16, 2003, as, after a hearing, found that she had neglected her four children.

Ordered that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The Family Court’s findings were established by a preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act § 1046 [b]; Matter of Nicole V., 71 NY2d 112 [1987]).

The mother’s remaining contention is without merit. Santucci, J.P., Schmidt, Rivera and Lifson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 A.D.3d 562, 778 N.Y.S.2d 725, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8714, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-rosalee-d-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack