In re Sara L.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Sara L.

249 A.D.2d 23, 671 N.Y.S.2d 232, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3798

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

DecidedApril 7, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 249 A.D.2d 23 (In re Sara L.) 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 Sara L., 249 A.D.2d 23, 671 N.Y.S.2d 232, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3798 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Family Court, New York County (Susan Larabee, J.), entered on or about October 15, 1997, denying respondent parents’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the petitions, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion granted and the petitions dismissed.

The claims set forth in the petitions are either contradicted by the agency’s own witnesses or documentary evidence, or conclusively resolved in respondent parents’ favor by.reference to record evidence. The Family Court failed to address the specific claims or to analyze the relevant evidence and erred in denying summary judgment dismissing the petitions. Parenthetically, we note that the respondent parents’ application pursuant to Family Court Act § 1028 to have their children returned to them should have received a hearing within three court days and no adjournments should have been granted; no good cause was demonstrated in this case for the delay.

In view of the paucity of the allegations of neglect and abuse, contradicted by both the testimonial and documentary evidence, summary judgment should have been granted and the petitions dismissed. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

—Order, Family Court, New York County (Susan Larabee, J.), entered on or about October 15, 1997, denying respondent parents’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the petitions, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion granted and the petitions dismissed.

The claims set forth in the petitions are either contradicted by the agency’s own witnesses or documentary evidence, or conclusively resolved in respondent parents’ favor by.reference to record evidence. The Family Court failed to address the specific claims or to analyze the relevant evidence and erred in denying summary judgment dismissing the petitions. Parenthetically, we note that the respondent parents’ application pursuant to Family Court Act § 1028 to have their children returned to them should have received a hearing within three court days and no adjournments should have been granted; no good cause was demonstrated in this case for the delay.

In view of the paucity of the allegations of neglect and abuse, contradicted by both the testimonial and documentary evidence, summary judgment should have been granted and the petitions dismissed. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D.2d 23, 671 N.Y.S.2d 232, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3798, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-sara-l-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack