In re Whitney B.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Whitney B.

199 A.D.2d 1061, 605 N.Y.S.2d 609

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

DecidedDecember 29, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 199 A.D.2d 1061 (In re Whitney B.) 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 Whitney B., 199 A.D.2d 1061, 605 N.Y.S.2d 609 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and petition dismissed. Memorandum: The record establishes, as found by Family Court, that while respondent was incarcerated he reasonably planned for the future of his children. Family Court thus erred in concluding that respondent permanently neglected his children (see, Social Services Law § 384-b [7]; see generally, Matter of Gregory B., 74 NY2d 77). Moreover, because the petition failed to specify, as required by Family Court Act § 614 (1) (c), the diligent efforts that petitioner undertook to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship, it was jurisdictionally defective and must be dismissed (see, Matter of Karen L., 80 AD2d 681, 682; see generally, Matter of David T., 75 NY2d 927). (Appeal from Order of Allegany County Family Court, Sprague, J.—Permanent Neglect.) Present—Pine, J. P., Balio, Lawton, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.

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

Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and petition dismissed. Memorandum: The record establishes, as found by Family Court, that while respondent was incarcerated he reasonably planned for the future of his children. Family Court thus erred in concluding that respondent permanently neglected his children (see, Social Services Law § 384-b [7]; see generally, Matter of Gregory B., 74 NY2d 77). Moreover, because the petition failed to specify, as required by Family Court Act § 614 (1) (c), the diligent efforts that petitioner undertook to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship, it was jurisdictionally defective and must be dismissed (see, Matter of Karen L., 80 AD2d 681, 682; see generally, Matter of David T., 75 NY2d 927). (Appeal from Order of Allegany County Family Court, Sprague, J.—Permanent Neglect.) Present—Pine, J. P., Balio, Lawton, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

199 A.D.2d 1061, 605 N.Y.S.2d 609, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-whitney-b-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack