Rose V. v. Commissioner of Social Services

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rose V. v. Commissioner of Social Services

170 A.D.2d 339

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedFebruary 21, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 170 A.D.2d 339 (Rose V. v. Commissioner of Social Services) 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

Rose V. v. Commissioner of Social Services, 170 A.D.2d 339 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Family Court, New York County (Bruce Kaplan, J.), dated December 9, 1988, which denied Rose V.’s petition for custody of her grandchild, granted respondent’s motion to dismiss the custody petition, and denied petitioner’s application for visitation is unanimously affirmed without costs or disbursements.

Petitioner has repeatedly interfered with the lawful custody of her grandchild, on one occasion, illegally removing him from this country. In addition, she has acted in an inappropriate and insensitive fashion toward the child when allowed visitation. Her continued non-compliance with court orders and her documented psychological problems indicate it would not be in the best interests of the child for petitioner to have [340]*340custody or be granted visitation rights. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Asch and Smith, JJ.

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

Order, Family Court, New York County (Bruce Kaplan, J.), dated December 9, 1988, which denied Rose V.’s petition for custody of her grandchild, granted respondent’s motion to dismiss the custody petition, and denied petitioner’s application for visitation is unanimously affirmed without costs or disbursements.

Petitioner has repeatedly interfered with the lawful custody of her grandchild, on one occasion, illegally removing him from this country. In addition, she has acted in an inappropriate and insensitive fashion toward the child when allowed visitation. Her continued non-compliance with court orders and her documented psychological problems indicate it would not be in the best interests of the child for petitioner to have [340]*340custody or be granted visitation rights. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Asch and Smith, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

170 A.D.2d 339, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rose-v-v-commissioner-of-social-services-nyappdiv-1991.