In re Trevlon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Trevlon

113 A.D.3d 867, 979 N.Y.2d 618

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

DecidedJanuary 29, 2014

StatusPublished

This text of 113 A.D.3d 867 (In re Trevlon) 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 Trevlon, 113 A.D.3d 867, 979 N.Y.2d 618 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

In this adoption proceeding pursuant to Domestic Relations Law article 7, the adoptive parents moved to confirm a report of a Judicial Hearing Officer (hereinafter the JHO) which, after a hearing, recommended a determination that the father of the subject child is not a person whose consent to adoption is required pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 111. The father did not oppose the motion of the adoptive parents, and did not [868]*868cross-move to reject the report. Therefore, the father waived his contentions that his consent is required for the subject adoption and that the JHO exceeded his authority under the order of reference, which are raised on appeal in the context of objections to the JHO’s report (see O’Donnell v O’Donnell, 80 AD3d 586 [2011]; Matter of Thomas v Murphy, 2 AD3d 1404 [2003]).

The father’s remaining contentions are not properly before this Court or are without merit. Rivera, J.P., Skelos, Chambers and Hall, JJ., concur.

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

In this adoption proceeding pursuant to Domestic Relations Law article 7, the adoptive parents moved to confirm a report of a Judicial Hearing Officer (hereinafter the JHO) which, after a hearing, recommended a determination that the father of the subject child is not a person whose consent to adoption is required pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 111. The father did not oppose the motion of the adoptive parents, and did not [868]*868cross-move to reject the report. Therefore, the father waived his contentions that his consent is required for the subject adoption and that the JHO exceeded his authority under the order of reference, which are raised on appeal in the context of objections to the JHO’s report (see O’Donnell v O’Donnell, 80 AD3d 586 [2011]; Matter of Thomas v Murphy, 2 AD3d 1404 [2003]).

The father’s remaining contentions are not properly before this Court or are without merit. Rivera, J.P., Skelos, Chambers and Hall, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

113 A.D.3d 867, 979 N.Y.2d 618, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-trevlon-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack