In re Sean S.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Sean S.

79 A.D.3d 757, 911 N.Y.S.2d 916

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

DecidedDecember 7, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 79 A.D.3d 757 (In re Sean S.) 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 Sean S., 79 A.D.3d 757, 911 N.Y.S.2d 916 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

In a child protective proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the attorney for the child appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Kings [758]*758County (Hamill, J.), dated October 20, 2009, as denied an application pursuant to County Law § 722-c to have a certain psychologist examine the child.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The attorney for the child failed to demonstrate that the psychologist’s services were “necessary” (County Law § 722-c; see Matter of Garfield M., 128 AD2d 876 [1987]). Accordingly, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the application pursuant to County Law § 722-c to have the psychologist examine the child. Rivera, J.P., Dickerson, Lott and Roman, 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 attorney for the child appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Kings [758]*758County (Hamill, J.), dated October 20, 2009, as denied an application pursuant to County Law § 722-c to have a certain psychologist examine the child.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The attorney for the child failed to demonstrate that the psychologist’s services were “necessary” (County Law § 722-c; see Matter of Garfield M., 128 AD2d 876 [1987]). Accordingly, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the application pursuant to County Law § 722-c to have the psychologist examine the child. Rivera, J.P., Dickerson, Lott and Roman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

79 A.D.3d 757, 911 N.Y.S.2d 916, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-sean-s-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack