Matter of Agam B. (Janna W.)

121 A.D.3d 1109, 996 N.Y.S.2d 632
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 29, 2014
Docket2013-09154
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 121 A.D.3d 1109 (Matter of Agam B. (Janna W.)) 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
Matter of Agam B. (Janna W.), 121 A.D.3d 1109, 996 N.Y.S.2d 632 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Opinion

In a child neglect proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Richroath, J), dated August 27, 2013, which granted the motion of the attorney for the child to appoint a guardian ad litem for the child pursuant to CPLR 1201 and 1202 during the pendency of the proceeding beyond his 18th birthday.

Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as the mother is not aggrieved thereby.

A person is aggrieved within the meaning of CPLR 5511 “when he or she asks for relief but that relief is denied in whole or in part,” or, when someone “asks for relief against him or her, which the person opposes, and the relief is granted in whole or in part” (Mixon v TBV, Inc., 76 AD3d 144, 156-157 [2010] [emphasis omitted]; see Matter of Michael O.F. [Fausat O.], 101 AD3d 1121, 1122 [2012]). Here, the mother did not “ask[ ] for relief,” and no party “ask[ed] for relief’ against her (Mahmood v Gutman, 81 AD3d 792, 792 [2011] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Edgar S. v Roman, 115 AD3d 931, 932 [2014]). Moreover, when the subject child reached the age of majority, the mother lost the legal right to make decisions on the child’s behalf, especially medical decisions, unless she obtained some form of court-authorized guardianship (see Matter of Chaim A.K., 26 Misc 3d 837, 838 [2009]; see also Social Services Law § 384-b [3] [g] [ii]; Family Ct Act § 1087 [a]; 18 NYCRR 441.2 [a] [1] [ii]; [c]), and here, she did not do so. Accordingly, the mother was not aggrieved by the order appealed from.

Mastro, J.E, Sgroi, Hinds-Radix and LaSalle, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Matter of Jada D. (Juan D.)
2024 NY Slip Op 04767 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2024)
Matter of Wiley v. Wiley
2024 NY Slip Op 02202 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2024)
Matter of Giordano v. Westchester County Bd. of Elections
2017 NY Slip Op 6272 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
121 A.D.3d 1109, 996 N.Y.S.2d 632, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-agam-b-janna-w-nyappdiv-2014.