In re Siami D.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Siami D.

192 A.D.2d 389, 596 N.Y.S.2d 64

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

DecidedApril 15, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 192 A.D.2d 389 (In re Siami D.) 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 Siami D., 192 A.D.2d 389, 596 N.Y.S.2d 64 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Michael Gage, J.), entered on or about September 4, 1990, which terminated respondent’s parental rights upon a finding that she had abandoned the subject children, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Family Court’s determination that respondent failed to communicate with the children for at least six months prior to the filing of the petition is supported by clear and convincing evidence. Respondent’s incarceration throughout this period does not excuse her failure to contact petitioner through a third person or by letter (see, Matter of Ulysses T., 87 AD2d 998, affd 66 NY2d 773; Matter of Jasmine T., 162 AD2d 756, lv denied 76 NY2d 714; cf., Matter of Gregory B., 74 NY2d 77). While respondent testified that she asked an unidentified prison social worker to call petitioner, we find no basis to disturb Family Court’s decision crediting the agency case record. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Ellerin, Wallach and Asch, JJ.

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

—Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Michael Gage, J.), entered on or about September 4, 1990, which terminated respondent’s parental rights upon a finding that she had abandoned the subject children, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Family Court’s determination that respondent failed to communicate with the children for at least six months prior to the filing of the petition is supported by clear and convincing evidence. Respondent’s incarceration throughout this period does not excuse her failure to contact petitioner through a third person or by letter (see, Matter of Ulysses T., 87 AD2d 998, affd 66 NY2d 773; Matter of Jasmine T., 162 AD2d 756, lv denied 76 NY2d 714; cf., Matter of Gregory B., 74 NY2d 77). While respondent testified that she asked an unidentified prison social worker to call petitioner, we find no basis to disturb Family Court’s decision crediting the agency case record. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Ellerin, Wallach and Asch, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

192 A.D.2d 389, 596 N.Y.S.2d 64, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-siami-d-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack