McReynolds v. Broderick

278 A.D.2d 6, 717 N.Y.S.2d 139, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12649
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 5, 2000
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 278 A.D.2d 6 (McReynolds v. Broderick) 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
McReynolds v. Broderick, 278 A.D.2d 6, 717 N.Y.S.2d 139, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12649 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, [7]*7Bronx County (Michael DeMarco, J.), entered May 23, 2000, which, in a proceeding in the nature of habeas corpus to compel defendant developmental disabilities officials to give up custody of plaintiffs son, granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the proceeding, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered on or about June 15, 2000, which denied plaintiffs motion to reargue, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as taken from a nonappealable order.

The proceeding was properly dismissed in view of the order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, enjoining plaintiff from commencing any further proceedings regarding his son in any Supreme Court in this State without first obtaining permission of the court, which plaintiff did not do. In addition, as the motion court also held, plaintiff lacks standing to sue on behalf of his son, a mentally disabled adult who was placed in defendants’ group home by his mother, and over whom plaintiffs guardianship and custody rights have been revoked, as determined in prior proceedings (McReynolds v Giuliani, 238 AD2d 249, lv denied 90 NY2d 803, cert denied 522 US 969) that plaintiff once again is improperly seeking to relitigate. Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Rosenberger, Nardelli, Tom and Lerner, JJ.

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

Related

Aaron v. Kennedy
211 A.D.3d 624 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
278 A.D.2d 6, 717 N.Y.S.2d 139, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12649, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcreynolds-v-broderick-nyappdiv-2000.