Matter of Andrea L.P. (Cassandra M.P.)

2017 NY Slip Op 8470, 156 A.D.3d 413, 64 N.Y.S.3d 527
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 5, 2017
Docket5116A 5116
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 8470 (Matter of Andrea L.P. (Cassandra M.P.)) 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 Andrea L.P. (Cassandra M.P.), 2017 NY Slip Op 8470, 156 A.D.3d 413, 64 N.Y.S.3d 527 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Opinion

Orders, Family Court, New York County (Stewart Weinstein, J.), entered on or about October 13, 2016, which, upon a finding of permanent neglect, terminated respondent mother’s parental rights to the subject children and committed custody and guardianship of the children to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of the Administration for Children’s Services for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

This Court previously determined that the agency met its burden of establishing permanent neglect (140 AD3d 477 [1st Dept 2016]). On remittitur, the Family Court properly determined that a preponderance of the evidence established that termination of the mother’s parental rights was in the children’s best interests (see Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 NY2d 136, 147-148 [1984]).

A suspended judgment was not warranted under the circumstances, because there was no evidence that respondent had a realistic and feasible plan to provide an adequate and stable home for the children, all of whom have special needs (see Matter of Charles Jahmel M. [Charles E.M.], 124 AD3d 496 [1st Dept 2015], lv denied 25 NY3d 905 [2015]; Matter of Jesus Michael P. [Sonia R.], 122 AD3d 520 [1st Dept 2014]). There is also no evidence that further delay will result in a different outcome, and the children, having been in foster care since 2012, deserve permanency after this extended period of uncertainty (see Matter of Selvin Adolph F. [Thelma Lynn W.], 146 AD3d 418 [1st Dept 2017]; Matter of Autumn P. [Alisa R.], 129 AD3d 519 [1st Dept 2015]). Furthermore, it is noted that the evidence at the hearing showed that respondent will be able to continue to see the children after the adoption (Selvin Adolph F. at 419).

Concur—Gische, J.P., Kapnick, Oing and Moulton, JJ.

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

Related

Matter of E. M. (Josephine B.)
2025 NY Slip Op 01172 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
Matter of Skylynn M.P. (Michelle F.)
2019 NY Slip Op 3731 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Matter of Tiara Dora S. (Debbie S.)
2019 NY Slip Op 1661 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Matter of Michaellica W. (Michael W.)
2018 NY Slip Op 7544 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2017 NY Slip Op 8470, 156 A.D.3d 413, 64 N.Y.S.3d 527, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-andrea-lp-cassandra-mp-nyappdiv-2017.