In re Ta Aisha H.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Ta Aisha H.

99 A.D.3d 487, 952 N.Y.2d 129

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

DecidedOctober 9, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 99 A.D.3d 487 (In re Ta Aisha H.) 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 Ta Aisha H., 99 A.D.3d 487, 952 N.Y.2d 129 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

A preponderance of the evidence supports the court’s finding that respondent neglected the child by committing acts of domestic violence on the child’s mother in the child’s presence (see Family Ct Act §§ 1012 [f] [i] [B]; 1046 [b] [i]; Nicholson v Scoppetta, 3 NY3d 357, 368 [2004]).

The court properly exercised its discretion in limiting respondent’s cross examination of the child’s mother concerning her prior criminal conviction and prior arrest (see People v Schwartzman, 24 NY2d 241, 244 [1969]).

On appeal, respondent does not raise any arguments with respect to the dispositional order. In any event, to the extent the appeal from that order is not abandoned, it is moot since the placement terms of the order have expired (see Matter of Adena I. [Claude I.], 91 AD3d 484 [1st Dept 2012]). Concur — Saxe, J.E, Sweeny, Richter, Abdus-Salaam and Román, JJ.

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

A preponderance of the evidence supports the court’s finding that respondent neglected the child by committing acts of domestic violence on the child’s mother in the child’s presence (see Family Ct Act §§ 1012 [f] [i] [B]; 1046 [b] [i]; Nicholson v Scoppetta, 3 NY3d 357, 368 [2004]).

The court properly exercised its discretion in limiting respondent’s cross examination of the child’s mother concerning her prior criminal conviction and prior arrest (see People v Schwartzman, 24 NY2d 241, 244 [1969]).

On appeal, respondent does not raise any arguments with respect to the dispositional order. In any event, to the extent the appeal from that order is not abandoned, it is moot since the placement terms of the order have expired (see Matter of Adena I. [Claude I.], 91 AD3d 484 [1st Dept 2012]). Concur — Saxe, J.E, Sweeny, Richter, Abdus-Salaam and Román, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 A.D.3d 487, 952 N.Y.2d 129, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-ta-aisha-h-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack