Putnam County Department of Social Services v. Eda G.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Putnam County Department of Social Services v. Eda G.

44 A.D.3d 777, 842 N.Y.S.2d 731

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 9, 2007·Published

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the appeal is from an order of the Family Court, Futnam County (Miller, J.), dated November 29, 2006, which denied, without a hearing, the appellants’ motion to set aside their consent to the adoption of their children.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the appellants’ contention, the Family Court properly denied their motion to set aside their consent to the adoption of their children without conducting a hearing (see Matter of Buhneing v Orange County Dept. of Social Servs., 282 AD2d 746 [2001]; Matter of Female R., 202 AD2d 672 [1994]). The record of the surrender proceedings demonstrated that the conditional surrenders were entered into by the appellants voluntarily and with a full understanding of their consequences and irrevocability (see Matter of Gino Z., 4 AD3d 631 [2004]; Matter of Amanda B., 206 AD2d 636 [1994]).

The appellants’ contention that they executed the surrenders while under duress is without merit (see Social Services Law § 383-c [6] [d]; Matter of Baby Boy O., 289 AD2d 631 [2001]; Matter of Baby Boy L., 144 AD2d 674 [1988]).

The appellants’ remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Schmidt, J.P., Rivera, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the appeal is from an order of the Family Court, Futnam County (Miller, J.), dated November 29, 2006, which denied, without a hearing, the appellants’ motion to set aside their consent to the adoption of their children.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the appellants’ contention, the Family Court properly denied their motion to set aside their consent to the adoption of their children without conducting a hearing (see Matter of Buhneing v Orange County Dept. of Social Servs., 282 AD2d 746 [2001]; Matter of Female R., 202 AD2d 672 [1994]). The record of the surrender proceedings demonstrated that the conditional surrenders were entered into by the appellants voluntarily and with a full understanding of their consequences and irrevocability (see Matter of Gino Z., 4 AD3d 631 [2004]; Matter of Amanda B., 206 AD2d 636 [1994]).

The appellants’ contention that they executed the surrenders while under duress is without merit (see Social Services Law § 383-c [6] [d]; Matter of Baby Boy O., 289 AD2d 631 [2001]; Matter of Baby Boy L., 144 AD2d 674 [1988]).

The appellants’ remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Schmidt, J.P., Rivera, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

Putnam County Department of Social Services v. Eda G., 44 A.D.3d 777, 842 N.Y.S.2d 731 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

44 A.D.3d 777 (Putnam County Department of Social Services v. Eda G.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related