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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 17, 1997·Published·Cited by 2 cases

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.

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

237 A.D.2d 452 (In re Tevina W.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related