Matter of Naquan L.G. (Carolyn C.)

119 A.D.3d 567, 987 N.Y.S.2d 904
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 2, 2014
Docket2013-01763
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 119 A.D.3d 567 (Matter of Naquan L.G. (Carolyn 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 Naquan L.G. (Carolyn C.), 119 A.D.3d 567, 987 N.Y.S.2d 904 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Opinion

In related proceedings pursuant to Social Services Law § 383-c, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (McGowan, J.), dated January 30, 2013, which denied her motion to vacate the judicial surrenders of her parental rights executed on January 20, 2011.

Ordered that the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Queens County, for a reconstruction hearing with respect to those portions of the proceedings conducted in the above-entitled cases on January 20, 2011, which could not be transcribed because the tape recordings were inaudible, and thereafter to report to this Court with all convenient speed, and the appeal is held in abeyance in the interim.

The mother contends, among other things, that her judicial surrenders of her parental rights executed on January 20, 2011, were invalid because the Family Court failed to comply with the requirements of Social Services Law § 383-c (3) (b). However, the issues raised by the mother on appeal cannot be resolved on *568 the record provided to this Court since relevant portions of the proceedings held on January 20, 2011, could not be transcribed because the tape recordings were inaudible (see Matter of Olson v Olson, 8 AD3d 285, 286 [2004]). Accordingly, we remit the matter to the Family Court, Queens County, for a reconstruction hearing with respect to those portions of the proceedings conducted in the above-entitled cases on January 20, 2011, which could not be transcribed because the tape recordings were inaudible, and the appeal is held in abeyance in the interim (see Matter of Chu Man Woo v Qiong Yun Xi, 100 AD3d 883 [2012]; Matter of Garner v Garner, 88 AD3d 708 [2011]).

Dillon, J.E, Hall, Sgroi and Barros, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Wagner v. Wagner
210 A.D.3d 1515 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
6914 Ridge Blvd., LLC v. Delao
75 Misc. 3d 127(A) (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
Matter of Trejo v. Pavon
2020 NY Slip Op 3412 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Matter of Eckstein v. Young
2018 NY Slip Op 8128 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Monaco v. New York City Transit Authority
2017 NY Slip Op 6178 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
HENDERSON, ROBERT W., PEOPLE v
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016
People v. Henderson
140 A.D.3d 1761 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
119 A.D.3d 567, 987 N.Y.S.2d 904, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-naquan-lg-carolyn-c-nyappdiv-2014.