In re William Jesse J.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re William Jesse J.

276 A.D.2d 349, 716 N.Y.S.2d 289, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10617

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

DecidedOctober 17, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 276 A.D.2d 349 (In re William Jesse J.) 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 William Jesse J., 276 A.D.2d 349, 716 N.Y.S.2d 289, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10617 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

Orders of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Allen Alpert, J.), entered on or about November 16, 1998, which, upon a finding of mental retardation, terminated respondent’s parental rights to the subject children, and committed their guardianship and custody to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of Social Services for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The uncontroverted testimony of the court-appointed psychologist provided clear and convincing evidence that respondent is presently and for the foreseeable future unable, by reason of mental retardation, to provide proper and adequate care for the children. We have considered and rejected respondent’s remaining arguments and find them to be unavailing. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

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

Orders of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Allen Alpert, J.), entered on or about November 16, 1998, which, upon a finding of mental retardation, terminated respondent’s parental rights to the subject children, and committed their guardianship and custody to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of Social Services for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The uncontroverted testimony of the court-appointed psychologist provided clear and convincing evidence that respondent is presently and for the foreseeable future unable, by reason of mental retardation, to provide proper and adequate care for the children. We have considered and rejected respondent’s remaining arguments and find them to be unavailing. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

276 A.D.2d 349, 716 N.Y.S.2d 289, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10617, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-william-jesse-j-nyappdiv-2000.