In re Rueben D.R.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Rueben D.R.

302 A.D.2d 234, 753 N.Y.S.2d 726, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1234

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

DecidedFebruary 11, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 302 A.D.2d 234 (In re Rueben D.R.) 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 Rueben D.R., 302 A.D.2d 234, 753 N.Y.S.2d 726, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1234 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from order, Family Court, Bronx County (Allen Alpert, J.), entered on or about September 19, 2001, which, in a proceeding to permanently terminate respondent’s parental rights to the subject child, denied respondent’s motion for visitation with tbe child in prison, unanimously dismissed as moot, without costs. Order, same court and Justice, entered on or about January 22, 2002, which, after respondent’s release from prison, denied his motion for visitation with the child, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent’s motion for visitation with the child in prison was rendered moot upon his release from prison. The denial of visitation after respondent’s release from prison was properly básed on compelling evidence, adduced at the still ongoing [235]*235fact-finding hearing, that respondent’s inappropriate behavior during the rare occasions he visited the child while not in prison was detrimental to the child’s welfare (see Matter of Williams v Tillman, 289 AD2d 885; Matter of Tanya T., 252 AD2d 677, 679). We have considered and rejected respondent’s other contentions. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.

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

Appeal from order, Family Court, Bronx County (Allen Alpert, J.), entered on or about September 19, 2001, which, in a proceeding to permanently terminate respondent’s parental rights to the subject child, denied respondent’s motion for visitation with tbe child in prison, unanimously dismissed as moot, without costs. Order, same court and Justice, entered on or about January 22, 2002, which, after respondent’s release from prison, denied his motion for visitation with the child, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent’s motion for visitation with the child in prison was rendered moot upon his release from prison. The denial of visitation after respondent’s release from prison was properly básed on compelling evidence, adduced at the still ongoing [235]*235fact-finding hearing, that respondent’s inappropriate behavior during the rare occasions he visited the child while not in prison was detrimental to the child’s welfare (see Matter of Williams v Tillman, 289 AD2d 885; Matter of Tanya T., 252 AD2d 677, 679). We have considered and rejected respondent’s other contentions. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

302 A.D.2d 234, 753 N.Y.S.2d 726, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1234, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-rueben-dr-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack