In re Tiesha P.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Tiesha P.

204 A.D.2d 122, 614 N.Y.S.2d 105

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

DecidedMay 10, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 204 A.D.2d 122 (In re Tiesha P.) 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 Tiesha P., 204 A.D.2d 122, 614 N.Y.S.2d 105 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Leah Ruth Marks, J.), entered July 27, 1993, placing the subject child in the custody of petitioner Commissioner of Social Services for six months, following a fact-finding determination that respondent-appellant had neglected the child, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The finding that appellant neglected the child by leaving her in the care of an inappropriate caretaker is amply supported by a preponderance of the evidence (Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [B]; cf., Matter of Sonja I., 161 AD2d 969, lv denied 76 NY2d 710).

We have considered appellant’s other claims and find them to be without merit. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Kupferman, Asch, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

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

—Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Leah Ruth Marks, J.), entered July 27, 1993, placing the subject child in the custody of petitioner Commissioner of Social Services for six months, following a fact-finding determination that respondent-appellant had neglected the child, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The finding that appellant neglected the child by leaving her in the care of an inappropriate caretaker is amply supported by a preponderance of the evidence (Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [B]; cf., Matter of Sonja I., 161 AD2d 969, lv denied 76 NY2d 710).

We have considered appellant’s other claims and find them to be without merit. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Kupferman, Asch, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

204 A.D.2d 122, 614 N.Y.S.2d 105, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-tiesha-p-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack