Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In re Mary UU.

State of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Judicial Department


February 18, 2010

IN THE MATTER OF MARY UU. AND ANOTHER, ALLEGED TO BE NEGLECTED CHILDREN.
BROOME COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, RESPONDENT; MICHAEL UU., APPELLANT, ET AL., RESPONDENT.
MARIE VV., RESPONDENT. (AND ANOTHER RELATED PROCEEDING.)

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Peters, J.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Calendar Date: January 7, 2010

Before: Cardona, P.J., Peters, Rose, Kavanagh and McCarthy, JJ.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Broome County (Charnetsky, J.), entered May 14, 2009, which, among other things, granted petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act article 10, to adjudicate the subject children to be neglected.

Petitioner commenced this neglect proceeding alleging, among other things, that respondent Michael UU. (hereinafter respondent) used and was under the influence of controlled substances while caring for the subject children (born in 1995 and 1997). Thereafter, with the assistance of counsel, respondent admitted to certain allegations contained in the petition, including that he was a person legally responsible for the children's care, and consented to both a finding that he neglected the children and Family Court's disposition. Respondent now appeals, arguing that he is not a person legally responsible for the children's care within the meaning of Family Court Act § 1012 (a) and (g).

Because no appeal lies from an order entered on consent, this appeal must be dismissed (see Matter of Michael CC., 216 AD2d 740, 740 [1995]; see also Matter of Fantasia Y., 45 AD3d 1215, 1216 [2007]). To the extent that respondent argues that his consent was not knowing, intelligent or voluntary, he failed to make an application in Family Court to vacate the order (see Family Ct Act § 1051 [f]; § 1061; Matter of Brittany T., 48 AD3d 995, 996 [2008]).*fn1

Cardona, P.J., Rose, Kavanagh and McCarthy, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, without costs.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.