In re Tesema H.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Tesema H.

227 A.D.2d 122, 642 N.Y.S.2d 505, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4783

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

DecidedMay 2, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 227 A.D.2d 122 (In re Tesema 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 Tesema H., 227 A.D.2d 122, 642 N.Y.S.2d 505, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4783 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Family Court, New York County (Leah Marks, J.), entered October 24, 1994, which denied respondent-appellant’s motion to vacate the fact-finding order made against her on default in this neglect proceeding, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the fact-finding order and resulting disposition vacated, and the matter remitted to Family Court to reopen the fact-finding hearing.

As both the Commissioner of Social Services and the Law Guardian have acknowledged throughout, respondent-appellant demonstrated that her failure to appear at the fact-finding hearing was not willful, and, accordingly, the fact-finding order and the resulting disposition should have been vacated for additional fact-finding (Family Ct Act § 1042; see, Matter of Dutchess County Dept. of Social Servs. [Mark M.], 196 AD2d 196). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Rubin, Kupferman and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Order, Family Court, New York County (Leah Marks, J.), entered October 24, 1994, which denied respondent-appellant’s motion to vacate the fact-finding order made against her on default in this neglect proceeding, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the fact-finding order and resulting disposition vacated, and the matter remitted to Family Court to reopen the fact-finding hearing.

As both the Commissioner of Social Services and the Law Guardian have acknowledged throughout, respondent-appellant demonstrated that her failure to appear at the fact-finding hearing was not willful, and, accordingly, the fact-finding order and the resulting disposition should have been vacated for additional fact-finding (Family Ct Act § 1042; see, Matter of Dutchess County Dept. of Social Servs. [Mark M.], 196 AD2d 196). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Rubin, Kupferman and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

227 A.D.2d 122, 642 N.Y.S.2d 505, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4783, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-tesema-h-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack