In re S. Children

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re S. Children

272 A.D.2d 475, 708 N.Y.S.2d 314, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5547

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

DecidedMay 15, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 272 A.D.2d 475 (In re S. Children) 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 S. Children, 272 A.D.2d 475, 708 N.Y.S.2d 314, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5547 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a child protective proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the mother appeals from a fact-finding and. dispositional order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Lehman, J.), dated December 3, 1998, which, after a hearing, found that she had neglected the subject children.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the petitioner proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Michael S. was neglected {see, Family Ct Act 1012 [f| [i]). On the facts presented, a finding of derivative neglect with regard to his siblings was [476]*476warranted (see, Matter of Dutchess County Dept, of Social Servs. [Douglas E., III] v Douglas E., Jr., 191 AD2d 694).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Thompson, J. P., Friedmann, Florio and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

—In a child protective proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the mother appeals from a fact-finding and. dispositional order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Lehman, J.), dated December 3, 1998, which, after a hearing, found that she had neglected the subject children.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the petitioner proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Michael S. was neglected {see, Family Ct Act 1012 [f| [i]). On the facts presented, a finding of derivative neglect with regard to his siblings was [476]*476warranted (see, Matter of Dutchess County Dept, of Social Servs. [Douglas E., III] v Douglas E., Jr., 191 AD2d 694).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Thompson, J. P., Friedmann, Florio and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 475, 708 N.Y.S.2d 314, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5547, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-s-children-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack