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 Vincent P.

NEW YORK SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT


March 16, 2010

IN RE VINCENT P., A CHILD UNDER THE AGE OF EIGHTEEN YEARS, ETC., SEAMEN'S SOCIETY FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT, AND ANDREW P., RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT, DOROTHY P., RESPONDENT.
v.
TAMARA STECKLER, LAW GUARDIAN, APPELLANT.

Order, Family Court, New York County (Susan Larabee, J.), entered on or about December 15, 2008, which denied petitioner agency's application to revoke a suspended judgment that had been entered following a finding of permanent neglect against respondent parent, deemed the suspended judgment satisfied, and referred the case back to the Referee for a permanency hearing and further consideration of the disposition that is in the subject child's best interests, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Friedman, J.P., Moskowitz, Renwick, Freedman, RomÁn, JJ.

The record supports Family Court's findings that respondent substantially complied with all of the terms and conditions of the suspended judgment (see Matter of Kaleb U., 280 AD2d 710, 712 [2001] [noncompliance must be demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence; Family Court's factual findings to be accorded great deference]), including attending individual and couple's counseling, submitting to random drug testing and remaining free of illicit substances, cooperating with announced and unannounced home visits, and cooperating with all reasonable referrals for services made by the agency. The record also supports Family Court's finding that respondent addressed and ameliorated the problems that endangered the child and led to his removal from the home and the finding of permanent neglect (see Matter of Michael B., 80 NY2d 299, 311 [1992]; Matter of Nicole OO, 262 AD2d 808, 810 [1999]). We have considered the agency's and the child's other contentions and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

20100316

© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.



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.