Matter of Tanay R. S. (Robert S.--Tanay M.)

122 A.D.3d 865, 996 N.Y.S.2d 352
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 19, 2014
Docket2013-10900
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 122 A.D.3d 865 (Matter of Tanay R. S. (Robert S.--Tanay M.)) 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 Tanay R. S. (Robert S.--Tanay M.), 122 A.D.3d 865, 996 N.Y.S.2d 352 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Ann E. O’Shea, J.), dated October 30, 2013. The order granted that branch of the petition which sought a determination that the father’s consent to the adoption of the subject child was not required pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 111.

*866 Ordered that on the Court’s own motion, the notice of appeal from the order is deemed to be an application for leave to appeal from the order, and leave to appeal is granted (see Family Ct Act § 1112 [a]); and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

In this proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b to terminate the mother’s parental rights on the ground of permanent neglect, the Family Court’s determination that the father’s consent to the adoption of the subject child was not required was supported by clear and convincing evidence (see Matter of Janelle C. [Sean R.], 88 AD3d 787, 787 [2011]). The father failed to meet his burden of establishing that he maintained substantial and continuous or repeated contact with the child through the payment of support and either regular visitation or other communication with the child (see Domestic Relations Law § 111 [1] [d]; Matter of Seasia D., 10 NY3d 879, 880 [2008]; Matter of Angelina J. [Frantz J.], 112 AD3d 932, 932-933 [2013]; Matter of Julian J.C. [Juan C.], 96 AD3d 937, 938 [2012]; Matter of Martin V.L. [Martin L.], 88 AD3d 714, 715 [2011]).

The father’s remaining contentions are improperly raised for the first time on appeal.

Rivera, J.E, Skelos, Dickerson and Barros, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Matter of Madelyn (Robert K.)
2019 NY Slip Op 5666 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Matter of Amor S. W. ( (Leonard H.)
2018 NY Slip Op 5054 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Matter of Akasha J.G. (Vincent G.)
2017 NY Slip Op 2645 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Matter of Tanay R.S. (Tanya M.)
2017 NY Slip Op 989 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
122 A.D.3d 865, 996 N.Y.S.2d 352, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-tanay-r-s-robert-s-tanay-m-nyappdiv-2014.