In re Shevonne C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Shevonne C.

292 A.D.2d 452, 738 N.Y.S.2d 883, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2514

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

DecidedMarch 11, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 292 A.D.2d 452 (In re Shevonne C.) 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 Shevonne C., 292 A.D.2d 452, 738 N.Y.S.2d 883, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2514 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

In a child protective proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the petitioner appeals from so much of an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Lynaugh, J.), entered November 21, 2001, as, after a hearing pursuant to Family Court Act § 1028, granted the grandmother’s application and returned the infant child to her.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The petitioner did not meet its burden of establishing that the infant child should remain in its custody (see, Matter of Marquel J., 269 AD2d 396; Besharov, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book.29A, Family Ct Act § 1028, at 45). The evidence adduced at the hearing did not establish an imminent risk of harm to the child (see, Family Ct Act § 1028). The Law Guardian testified at the hearing that there was no danger in the child being with her grandmother and the other children in the household. Ritter, J.P., Smith, Friedmann and Cozier, 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 petitioner appeals from so much of an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Lynaugh, J.), entered November 21, 2001, as, after a hearing pursuant to Family Court Act § 1028, granted the grandmother’s application and returned the infant child to her.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The petitioner did not meet its burden of establishing that the infant child should remain in its custody (see, Matter of Marquel J., 269 AD2d 396; Besharov, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book.29A, Family Ct Act § 1028, at 45). The evidence adduced at the hearing did not establish an imminent risk of harm to the child (see, Family Ct Act § 1028). The Law Guardian testified at the hearing that there was no danger in the child being with her grandmother and the other children in the household. Ritter, J.P., Smith, Friedmann and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

292 A.D.2d 452, 738 N.Y.S.2d 883, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2514, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-shevonne-c-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack