Matter of John S. (Milica S.)

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of John S. (Milica S.)

137 A.D.3d 706, 27 N.Y.S.3d 382

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

DecidedMarch 31, 2016

Docket678

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 137 A.D.3d 706 (Matter of John S. (Milica S.)) 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 John S. (Milica S.), 137 A.D.3d 706, 27 N.Y.S.3d 382 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

*707 Order, Family Court, New York County (Stewart H. Weinstein, J.), entered on or about February 19, 2015, which, after a fact-finding hearing, found that respondent mother neglected the subject child, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner agency satisfied its burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that respondent neglected the child (see Family Ct Act §§ 1012 [fj [i] [B]; 1046 [b] [i]). There are no grounds for disturbing the court’s credibility determinations (see Matter of Fernando S., 63 AD3d 610 [1st Dept 2009]). Respondent placed the child in imminent danger after she became intoxicated on the night of December 15, 2013, assaulted the child’s father in the child’s presence, and assaulted the child (see Matter of Raima W., 59 AD3d 633 [2d Dept 2009]). Her participation in and completion of 12 weeks of intensive outpatient treatment after the instant neglect petition was filed against her, while positive, does not warrant a diffrent disposition on the issue of neglect (see Matter of Elijah J. [Yvonda M.], 105 AD3d 449, 450 [1st Dept 2013]; Family Ct Act § 1046 [a] [iii]).

Respondent failed to preserve her argument that the petition should have been dismissed pursuant to Family Court Act § 1051 (c), and we decline to consider it (see Matter of Cherish C. [Shanikwa C.], 102 AD3d 597 [1st Dept 2013]). Were we to consider it, we would reject it.

Concur—Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Manzanet-Daniels, Gische and Gesmer, JJ.

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

*707 Order, Family Court, New York County (Stewart H. Weinstein, J.), entered on or about February 19, 2015, which, after a fact-finding hearing, found that respondent mother neglected the subject child, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner agency satisfied its burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that respondent neglected the child (see Family Ct Act §§ 1012 [fj [i] [B]; 1046 [b] [i]). There are no grounds for disturbing the court’s credibility determinations (see Matter of Fernando S., 63 AD3d 610 [1st Dept 2009]). Respondent placed the child in imminent danger after she became intoxicated on the night of December 15, 2013, assaulted the child’s father in the child’s presence, and assaulted the child (see Matter of Raima W., 59 AD3d 633 [2d Dept 2009]). Her participation in and completion of 12 weeks of intensive outpatient treatment after the instant neglect petition was filed against her, while positive, does not warrant a diffrent disposition on the issue of neglect (see Matter of Elijah J. [Yvonda M.], 105 AD3d 449, 450 [1st Dept 2013]; Family Ct Act § 1046 [a] [iii]).

Respondent failed to preserve her argument that the petition should have been dismissed pursuant to Family Court Act § 1051 (c), and we decline to consider it (see Matter of Cherish C. [Shanikwa C.], 102 AD3d 597 [1st Dept 2013]). Were we to consider it, we would reject it.

Concur—Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Manzanet-Daniels, Gische and Gesmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

137 A.D.3d 706, 27 N.Y.S.3d 382, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-john-s-milica-s-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack