In re Tiffany E.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Tiffany E.

214 A.D.2d 469, 625 N.Y.S.2d 229, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4578

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

DecidedApril 25, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 214 A.D.2d 469 (In re Tiffany E.) 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 Tiffany E., 214 A.D.2d 469, 625 N.Y.S.2d 229, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4578 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Family Court, New York County (Jeffrey Gallet, J.), entered May 11, 1993, which after a traverse hearing, denied respondent’s motion to vacate a prior order of the same court and Judge, terminating her parental rights, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

No basis exists to disturb Family Court’s finding crediting the testimony of petitioner’s process server and discrediting that of respondent on the issue of whether service was made (see, Tirado v City of New York, 200 AD2d 383). The discrepancy between the process server’s description of respondent’s weight in his affidavit of service and her actual weight was explained by his testimony that she took the papers from him behind a "cracked door”. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin, Williams and Tom, JJ.

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

Order, Family Court, New York County (Jeffrey Gallet, J.), entered May 11, 1993, which after a traverse hearing, denied respondent’s motion to vacate a prior order of the same court and Judge, terminating her parental rights, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

No basis exists to disturb Family Court’s finding crediting the testimony of petitioner’s process server and discrediting that of respondent on the issue of whether service was made (see, Tirado v City of New York, 200 AD2d 383). The discrepancy between the process server’s description of respondent’s weight in his affidavit of service and her actual weight was explained by his testimony that she took the papers from him behind a "cracked door”. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin, Williams and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

214 A.D.2d 469, 625 N.Y.S.2d 229, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4578, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-tiffany-e-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack