Matter of Lavountae A.

New York Court of Appeals

Matter of Lavountae A.

908 N.E.2d 904, 12 N.Y.3d 832

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 7, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 908 N.E.2d 904 (Matter of Lavountae A.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Matter of Lavountae A., 908 N.E.2d 904, 12 N.Y.3d 832 (N.Y. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs.

Family Court entered a determination of neglect based, in part, on a finding that respondent mother had a drug problem that necessitated treatment and that placed her children in imminent risk of harm. The court further observed that she had failed to follow through with two drug treatment programs despite her previous acknowledgment of a drug problem and her repeated promises to comply with treatment directives. Since the Appellate Division affirmed the neglect determination, we may disturb it only if it is not supported by sufficient proof in the record. Because we cannot say that there is no valid line of reasoning that could lead a rational factfinder to the decision reached in this case, we affirm.

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Cipajrick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, without costs, in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs.

Family Court entered a determination of neglect based, in part, on a finding that respondent mother had a drug problem that necessitated treatment and that placed her children in imminent risk of harm. The court further observed that she had failed to follow through with two drug treatment programs despite her previous acknowledgment of a drug problem and her repeated promises to comply with treatment directives. Since the Appellate Division affirmed the neglect determination, we may disturb it only if it is not supported by sufficient proof in the record. Because we cannot say that there is no valid line of reasoning that could lead a rational factfinder to the decision reached in this case, we affirm.

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Cipajrick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, without costs, in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

908 N.E.2d 904, 12 N.Y.3d 832, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-lavountae-a-ny-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack