Matter of Alexander H. (Brenda P.-H.)

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Alexander H. (Brenda P.-H.)

2017 NY Slip Op 9246, 156 A.D.3d 561, 65 N.Y.S.3d 711

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

DecidedDecember 28, 2017

Docket5287

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 9246 (Matter of Alexander H. (Brenda P.-H.)) 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 Alexander H. (Brenda P.-H.), 2017 NY Slip Op 9246, 156 A.D.3d 561, 65 N.Y.S.3d 711 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Notice of appeal from order, Family Court, New York County (Stewart H. Weinstein, J.), entered on or about November 22, 2016, which granted petitioner agency’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of severe abuse as to the subject child, deemed a motion for leave to appeal, the motion granted, and the order unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The agency established prima facie that the child was “severely abused” by respondent mother (Social Services Law § 384-b [8] [iii] [C]; [iv]) by submitting respondent’s criminal conviction of second-degree assault with respect to another of her children and a prior order of the court granting the agency’s motion to excuse it from making efforts to reunify respondent with the child, from which respondent did not appeal. In opposition, respondent failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Matter of Vivienne Bobbi-Hadiya S. [Makena Asanta Malika McK.], 126 AD3d 545 [1st Dept 2015], lv denied 25 NY3d 909 [2015]).

There is no appeal as of right from a nondispositional order in a permanent neglect proceeding (Family Ct Act § 1112 [a]; Matter of Tasha E., 161 AD2d 226, 227 [1st Dept 1990]; see also Matter of Alyssa L. [Deborah K.], 93 AD3d 1083, 1085-1086 [3d Dept 2012]). Nevertheless, we find there is no merit to the claim.

Concur—Acosta, P.J., Richter, Mazzarelli, Andrias and Gesmer, JJ.

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

Notice of appeal from order, Family Court, New York County (Stewart H. Weinstein, J.), entered on or about November 22, 2016, which granted petitioner agency’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of severe abuse as to the subject child, deemed a motion for leave to appeal, the motion granted, and the order unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The agency established prima facie that the child was “severely abused” by respondent mother (Social Services Law § 384-b [8] [iii] [C]; [iv]) by submitting respondent’s criminal conviction of second-degree assault with respect to another of her children and a prior order of the court granting the agency’s motion to excuse it from making efforts to reunify respondent with the child, from which respondent did not appeal. In opposition, respondent failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Matter of Vivienne Bobbi-Hadiya S. [Makena Asanta Malika McK.], 126 AD3d 545 [1st Dept 2015], lv denied 25 NY3d 909 [2015]).

There is no appeal as of right from a nondispositional order in a permanent neglect proceeding (Family Ct Act § 1112 [a]; Matter of Tasha E., 161 AD2d 226, 227 [1st Dept 1990]; see also Matter of Alyssa L. [Deborah K.], 93 AD3d 1083, 1085-1086 [3d Dept 2012]). Nevertheless, we find there is no merit to the claim.

Concur—Acosta, P.J., Richter, Mazzarelli, Andrias and Gesmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 9246, 156 A.D.3d 561, 65 N.Y.S.3d 711, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-alexander-h-brenda-p-h-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack