From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Derwood G. v. Daniel R.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Jan 14, 2021
190 A.D.3d 520 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)

Opinion

12861 Docket No. O-39151-19 Case No. 2020-00820

01-14-2021

In the Matter of DERWOOD G., Petitioner–Appellant, v. DANIEL R., Respondent–Respondent.

George E. Reed, Jr., White Plains, for appellant. Andrew J. Baer, New York, for respondent. Janet Neustaetter, The Children's Law Center, Brooklyn (Louise Feld of counsel), attorney for the child.


George E. Reed, Jr., White Plains, for appellant.

Andrew J. Baer, New York, for respondent.

Janet Neustaetter, The Children's Law Center, Brooklyn (Louise Feld of counsel), attorney for the child.

Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Gische, Kapnick, Singh, Mendez, JJ.

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Ariel D. Chesler, J.), entered on or about December 27, 2019, which dismissed petitioner father's family offense petition seeking an order of protection on behalf of his minor child for failure to state a claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The Family Court properly dismissed the father's petition without a hearing because, even reading the allegations liberally in favor of the father, he did not allege conduct committed by respondent, the mother's boyfriend, which would constitute a family offense against the subject child (see Matter of Bustamante v. Largue, 112 A.D.3d 819, 820, 977 N.Y.S.2d 347 [2d Dept. 2013] ). The Family Court did not improperly rely on hearsay, but took into account the representation of an Administration for Children's Services court liaison that an investigation concerning the father's allegations was unfounded, which provided additional assurance that the child was not at immediate risk of harm (see Matter of Loriann Q. v. Frank R., 53 A.D.3d 735, 861 N.Y.S.2d 467 [3d Dept. 2008] ).

The father was not denied due process as a result of the court assigning him an attorney during the second court appearance because the record shows that he clearly received the benefit of legal representation (see Matter of Fralix v. Thornock, 9 A.D.3d 890, 779 N.Y.S.2d 687 [4th Dept. 2004] ).

We have reviewed the father's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.


Summaries of

Derwood G. v. Daniel R.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Jan 14, 2021
190 A.D.3d 520 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)
Case details for

Derwood G. v. Daniel R.

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of Derwood G., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Daniel R.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Date published: Jan 14, 2021

Citations

190 A.D.3d 520 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)
2021 N.Y. Slip Op. 231
135 N.Y.S.3d 836

Citing Cases

Trevino v. Pray

As to the mother's request for attorney's fees in connection with the second petition, she was not entitled…