In re Tevina W.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Tevina W.

237 A.D.2d 452, 656 N.Y.S.2d 731, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2523

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

DecidedMarch 17, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 237 A.D.2d 452 (In re Tevina W.) 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 Tevina W., 237 A.D.2d 452, 656 N.Y.S.2d 731, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2523 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to Family-Court Act article 10, the mother appeals from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Queens County (Fitzmaurice, J.), dated February 6, 1996, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court dated March 28, 1995, finding that the subject child was neglected, inter alia, placed the child in the custody of the Commissioner of Social Services. The appeal brings up for review the fact-finding order dated March 28, 1995.

Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the mother’s contention, the petitioner proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject child was neglected (see, Family Ct Act § 1046 [b] [i]; § 1012 [f] [i]). Indeed, the testimony demonstrated, inter alia, that the mother’s behavior towards the child constituted conduct "requiring the aid of the court” (Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [B]; see also, Matter of Baby Boy E., 187 AD2d 512; Matter of Danielle M., 151 AD2d 240). Additionally, the dispositional order is in the best interests of the child (see, Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. [Trudy I.] v Leona W., 192 AD2d 602).

The remaining contentions lack merit. Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Altman and Krausman, JJ., concur.

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

—In a proceeding pursuant to Family-Court Act article 10, the mother appeals from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Queens County (Fitzmaurice, J.), dated February 6, 1996, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court dated March 28, 1995, finding that the subject child was neglected, inter alia, placed the child in the custody of the Commissioner of Social Services. The appeal brings up for review the fact-finding order dated March 28, 1995.

Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the mother’s contention, the petitioner proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject child was neglected (see, Family Ct Act § 1046 [b] [i]; § 1012 [f] [i]). Indeed, the testimony demonstrated, inter alia, that the mother’s behavior towards the child constituted conduct "requiring the aid of the court” (Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [B]; see also, Matter of Baby Boy E., 187 AD2d 512; Matter of Danielle M., 151 AD2d 240). Additionally, the dispositional order is in the best interests of the child (see, Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. [Trudy I.] v Leona W., 192 AD2d 602).

The remaining contentions lack merit. Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Altman and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

237 A.D.2d 452, 656 N.Y.S.2d 731, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2523, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-tevina-w-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack