Matter of Grace M. (Denise C.)

2021 NY Slip Op 00566, 191 A.D.3d 681, 137 N.Y.S.3d 719
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 3, 2021
DocketDocket No. N-10350-15
StatusPublished

This text of 2021 NY Slip Op 00566 (Matter of Grace M. (Denise C.)) 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 Grace M. (Denise C.), 2021 NY Slip Op 00566, 191 A.D.3d 681, 137 N.Y.S.3d 719 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2021).

Opinion

Matter of Grace M. (Denise C.) (2021 NY Slip Op 00566)
Matter of Grace M. (Denise C.)
2021 NY Slip Op 00566
Decided on February 3, 2021
Appellate Division, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided on February 3, 2021 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P.
COLLEEN D. DUFFY
ANGELA G. IANNACCI
PAUL WOOTEN, JJ.

2020-06589
(Docket No. N-10350-15)

[*1]In the Matter of Grace M. (Anonymous). Suffolk County Department of Social Services, appellant; Denise C. (Anonymous), respondent.


Dennis M. Cohen, County Attorney, Central Islip, NY (Randall J. Ratje of counsel), for appellant.

Jennifer S. Lippmann, West Islip, NY, attorney for the child.



DECISION & ORDER

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Bernard Cheng, J.), dated May 27, 2020. The order, insofar as appealed from, after a hearing, continued the subject child's placement until the completion of the next permanency hearing or pending further order of the court.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

In the context of a permanency hearing, a child over the age of 18 must consent to the continuation of placement (see Family Ct Act § 1089[d][2][ii]). Here, the subject 20-year-old child was represented at the permanency hearing by counsel (see generally 22 NYCRR 205.17[e]), who consented to the continuation of placement on the child's behalf. Contrary to the petitioner's contention, under these circumstances, the Family Court properly continued placement of the subject child (see generally Matter of Dawn M. [Michael M.], 151 AD3d 1489, 1492).

Therefore, we affirm the order insofar as appealed from.

RIVERA, J.P., DUFFY, IANNACCI and WOOTEN, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court



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

Related

Matter of Dawn M. (Michael M.)
2017 NY Slip Op 5282 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2021 NY Slip Op 00566, 191 A.D.3d 681, 137 N.Y.S.3d 719, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-grace-m-denise-c-nyappdiv-2021.