In re the Adoption of LeeAnne V.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Adoption of LeeAnne V.

22 A.D.3d 378, 801 N.Y.S.2d 902

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

DecidedOctober 20, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 22 A.D.3d 378 (In re the Adoption of LeeAnne V.) 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 the Adoption of LeeAnne V., 22 A.D.3d 378, 801 N.Y.S.2d 902 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Allen G. Alpert, J.), entered on or about December 16, 2003, which determined after a hearing that petitioner father’s consent to adoption was not required and dismissed the custody petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Inasmuch as the evidence establishes that petitioner father failed to provide consistent financial support for the child despite a court order and did not maintain “substantial and continuous or repeated contact with the child” within the meaning of Domestic Relations Law § 111 (1) (d), the court properly concluded that his consent to the child’s adoption was not required (see Matter of Maxamillian, 6 AD3d 349, 351 [2004]; Matter of Tiffany Lynn G., 259 AD2d 616 [1999]). Concur— Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, Marlow and Nardelli, JJ.

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

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Allen G. Alpert, J.), entered on or about December 16, 2003, which determined after a hearing that petitioner father’s consent to adoption was not required and dismissed the custody petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Inasmuch as the evidence establishes that petitioner father failed to provide consistent financial support for the child despite a court order and did not maintain “substantial and continuous or repeated contact with the child” within the meaning of Domestic Relations Law § 111 (1) (d), the court properly concluded that his consent to the child’s adoption was not required (see Matter of Maxamillian, 6 AD3d 349, 351 [2004]; Matter of Tiffany Lynn G., 259 AD2d 616 [1999]). Concur— Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, Marlow and Nardelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 A.D.3d 378, 801 N.Y.S.2d 902, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-adoption-of-leeanne-v-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack