In re Alfred C.
Cases that cite this one
18 later published cases cite this decision.
- Matter of Deanna E. R. (Latisha M.) (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
- Matter of Hanah A. (Kristy M.) (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
- Matter of Innocence A. M.-F. (Khadijah N. M.-F.) (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
- Matter of Kayla B. (Irina B.) (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
- Matter of Jason F.A. (Francisco A.) (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- Matter of Louise M. L. (Melinda M. T.) (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- Matter of Saini v. Singh (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- Matter of Dean J. K. (Joseph D. K.) (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- In re Beyonce H. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
- In re Aaron McC. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- In re Kathleen K. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- In re Carrieanne G. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
- In re Krystal M. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
- In re Jessie A. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
- DeCamp v. DeCamp (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
- In re Matthew C. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
- Department of Social Services ex rel. Maitland v. Mitchell (NYC Family Court 2000)
- In re Steven K. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
In a child protective proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the parents appeal from an order of the Family Court, Rockland County (Warren, J.), dated November 9, 1994, which, after a fact-finding hearing, determined that Alfred C. was an abused and neglected child and that Suzanne C. was a neglected child.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The right to counsel in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10 is guaranteed by statute (see, Family Ct Act § 262 [a] [i]). In assessing a claim based upon ineffective assistance of counsel, the focus is whether the individual received "meaningful” assistance (see, People v English, 215 AD2d 871; Matter of Erin G., 139 AD2d 737, 739; Matter of De Vivo v Burrell, 101 AD2d 607). Because of the potentially drastic consequences of a child protective proceeding, the statutory right to counsel under Family Court Act § 262 affords protections equivalent to the constitutional standard of effective assistance of counsel afforded defendants in criminal proceedings (see, Matter of Erin G., supra, at 739; Matter of De Vivo v Burrell, supra). Applying these principles here we find that the appellants were afforded meaningful representation, thereby satisfying the constitutional standard (see, Matter of Erin G., supra, at 739; People v Satterfield, 66 NY2d 796; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137).
The appellants’ remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Miller, J. P., Ritter, Thompson and Krausman, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.