In re Rosemary D.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Rosemary D.

78 A.D.2d 889, 433 N.Y.S.2d 41, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13620

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

DecidedNovember 17, 1980

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 78 A.D.2d 889 (In re Rosemary 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 Rosemary D., 78 A.D.2d 889, 433 N.Y.S.2d 41, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13620 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeals from two orders of the Family Court, Kings County, both dated May 21, 1979, which, inter alia, permanently terminated appellant’s parental rights and awarded custody of the children to the respondent for purposes of adoption. Orders affirmed, without costs or disbursements. In this case the Family Court received into evidence the entire case file of the respondent with respect to the children involved. As was noted in Matter of Melanie Ruth JJ (76 AD2d 1008,1009), “the mere admission of the entire case file does not automatically warrant reversal. In those instances in which the entire case file is admitted,‘fundamental fairness’ will not be violated when a [natural parent] has an opportunity to examine the file, either prior to or during the trial (Matter of Leon RR, 48 NY2d 117,123-124).” Such an opportunity has been afforded in this case. We have considered appellant’s further points and have found them to be without merit. Accordingly, the orders are affirmed. Hopkins, J. P., Damiani, Lazer and Cohalan, JJ., concur.

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

Appeals from two orders of the Family Court, Kings County, both dated May 21, 1979, which, inter alia, permanently terminated appellant’s parental rights and awarded custody of the children to the respondent for purposes of adoption. Orders affirmed, without costs or disbursements. In this case the Family Court received into evidence the entire case file of the respondent with respect to the children involved. As was noted in Matter of Melanie Ruth JJ (76 AD2d 1008,1009), “the mere admission of the entire case file does not automatically warrant reversal. In those instances in which the entire case file is admitted,‘fundamental fairness’ will not be violated when a [natural parent] has an opportunity to examine the file, either prior to or during the trial (Matter of Leon RR, 48 NY2d 117,123-124).” Such an opportunity has been afforded in this case. We have considered appellant’s further points and have found them to be without merit. Accordingly, the orders are affirmed. Hopkins, J. P., Damiani, Lazer and Cohalan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 A.D.2d 889, 433 N.Y.S.2d 41, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13620, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-rosemary-d-nyappdiv-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack