In re Rosh E.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Rosh E.

248 A.D.2d 179, 669 N.Y.S.2d 813, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2372

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

DecidedMarch 10, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 248 A.D.2d 179 (In re Rosh E.) 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 Rosh E., 248 A.D.2d 179, 669 N.Y.S.2d 813, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2372 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Leah Marks, J.), entered on or about October 17, 1996, which, upon findings of abuse made in respondent’s absence, placed the subject children in the custody of petitioner Commissioner of Administration for Children’s Services for 12 months, and bringing up for review a ruling denying respondent’s motion to vacate his default at the fact-finding hearing, unanimously reversed, on the facts, without costs, and the matter remanded for a new fact-finding hearing.

As argued by both petitioner and the law guardian, respondent’s motion to vacate the fact-finding determination made in his absence should have been granted, respondent having made a clear showing that his failure to appear at the hearing was [180]*180not willful (Family Ct Act § 1042). Accordingly, we remand for a new fact-finding hearing.

Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Rubin and Tom, JJ.

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

—Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Leah Marks, J.), entered on or about October 17, 1996, which, upon findings of abuse made in respondent’s absence, placed the subject children in the custody of petitioner Commissioner of Administration for Children’s Services for 12 months, and bringing up for review a ruling denying respondent’s motion to vacate his default at the fact-finding hearing, unanimously reversed, on the facts, without costs, and the matter remanded for a new fact-finding hearing.

As argued by both petitioner and the law guardian, respondent’s motion to vacate the fact-finding determination made in his absence should have been granted, respondent having made a clear showing that his failure to appear at the hearing was [180]*180not willful (Family Ct Act § 1042). Accordingly, we remand for a new fact-finding hearing.

Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Rubin and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 A.D.2d 179, 669 N.Y.S.2d 813, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2372, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-rosh-e-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack