In re Steven M.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Steven M.

37 A.D.3d 1072, 829 N.Y.S.2d 346

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

DecidedFebruary 2, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 37 A.D.3d 1072 (In re Steven M.) 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 Steven M., 37 A.D.3d 1072, 829 N.Y.S.2d 346 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an amended order of the Family Court, Onondaga County (David G. Klim, J), entered June 12, 2006 in a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b. The amended order, insofar as appealed from, terminated the parental rights of respondent Henrietta N.M.

It is hereby ordered that the amended order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Respondent mother (respondent) appeals from an order terminating her parental rights on the ground of mental illness pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b (4) (c) rather than from the subsequent amended order. In the exercise of our discretion, we treat the notice of appeal as valid and deem the appeal as taken from the amended order (see Matter of Ruggieri v Bryan, 23 AD3d 991 [2005]; see also CPLR 5520 [c]). We conclude that Family Court’s determination that respondent is presently and for the foreseeable future unable by reason of mental illness to provide proper and adequate care for her children is supported by clear and convincing evidence (see generally Matter of Damion S., 300 AD2d 1039 [2002]). Contrary to the contention of respondent, “ ‘[t]he mere possibility that [her] condition, with proper treatment, could improve in the future is insufficient to vitiate [the court’s determination]’ ” (id. at 1039; see Matter of Trebor UU., 295 AD2d 648, 650 [2002]; Matter of Harris AA., 285 AD2d 755, 756-757 [2001]). Present—Hurlbutt, J.E, Gorski, Lunn, Peradotto and Green, JJ.

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

Appeal from an amended order of the Family Court, Onondaga County (David G. Klim, J), entered June 12, 2006 in a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b. The amended order, insofar as appealed from, terminated the parental rights of respondent Henrietta N.M.

It is hereby ordered that the amended order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Respondent mother (respondent) appeals from an order terminating her parental rights on the ground of mental illness pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b (4) (c) rather than from the subsequent amended order. In the exercise of our discretion, we treat the notice of appeal as valid and deem the appeal as taken from the amended order (see Matter of Ruggieri v Bryan, 23 AD3d 991 [2005]; see also CPLR 5520 [c]). We conclude that Family Court’s determination that respondent is presently and for the foreseeable future unable by reason of mental illness to provide proper and adequate care for her children is supported by clear and convincing evidence (see generally Matter of Damion S., 300 AD2d 1039 [2002]). Contrary to the contention of respondent, “ ‘[t]he mere possibility that [her] condition, with proper treatment, could improve in the future is insufficient to vitiate [the court’s determination]’ ” (id. at 1039; see Matter of Trebor UU., 295 AD2d 648, 650 [2002]; Matter of Harris AA., 285 AD2d 755, 756-757 [2001]). Present—Hurlbutt, J.E, Gorski, Lunn, Peradotto and Green, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 A.D.3d 1072, 829 N.Y.S.2d 346, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-steven-m-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack