From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Krystal

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 29, 2009
68 A.D.3d 670 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)

Opinion

No. 1892.

December 29, 2009.

Order, Family Court, New York County (Jane Pearl, J.), entered on or about January 27, 2009, which, insofar as appealed from, after a fact-finding hearing, found that respondent mother neglected the subject child Krystal F, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the finding of neglect vacated and the petition dismissed as against respondent mother.

Kenneth M. Tuccillo, Hastings-On-Hudson, for appellant.

Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Alan G. Krams of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Mazzarelli, J.P., Catterson, Moskowitz, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.


On or about March 12, 2009, the Family Court issued a dispositional order, placing custody of the child with her father, and no appeal has been taken from this order. Ordinarily, the right of direct appeal from an intermediate order terminates with entry of a judgment ( see Matter of Aho, 39 NY2d 241, 248). However, this Court has jurisdiction to hear this appeal since "[a]n appeal from an intermediate or final order in a case involving abuse or neglect may be taken as of right" (Family Ct Act § 1112 [a]; but see Matter of Leah F., 61 AD3d 535 [1st Dept 2009]).

The finding of neglect was not supported by a preponderance of the evidence (Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [B]; § 1046 [b] [i]).


Summaries of

In re Krystal

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 29, 2009
68 A.D.3d 670 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)
Case details for

In re Krystal

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of KRYSTAL F. and Others, Children Alleged to be Neglected…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Dec 29, 2009

Citations

68 A.D.3d 670 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)
2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 9709
892 N.Y.S.2d 87

Citing Cases

Tioga Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Christine L. (In re Arra L.)

Family Court denied the motion and respondent appeals. Intermediate orders like the one at issue here are…

In re Jayla A.

In these proceedings brought pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, respondent Isaac C., the paramour of…