Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002

In re Ishia Marie W. Lakeside Child & Family Services, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided March 18, 2002

292 A.D.2d 535; 739 N.Y.S.2d 290; 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2966

Cases that cite this one

8 later published cases cite this decision.

In re Melissa M. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
In re Jordan Amir B. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
In re Aaron S. Orange County Department of Social Services (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
In re Tyreek F. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
In re Amanda Crystal Juton A. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
In re Ulawrence J. Westchester County Department of Social Services (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
In re Judith D. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
In re the Guardianship & Custody of Jonathan B. (NYC Family Court 2002)

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 proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b to terminate parental rights, the mother appeals from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Hepner, J.), dated July 27, 1998, which, after fact-finding and dispositional hearings, inter alia, terminated her parental rights and committed the custody of the child to the petitioner.

Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

A suspended judgment may be revoked if the Family Court finds that a preponderance of the evidence adduced at a violation hearing establishes noncompliance with a condition of that judgment (see, Matter of William Ralph T., 286 AD2d 441; *536Matter of Alka H., 278 AD2d 326; Matter of A. Children, 255 AD2d 510). The evidence presented at the violation hearing supports the Family Court’s determination that the mother failed to satisfy the conditions of her suspended judgment and that the termination of her parental rights was in the best interests of her child (see, Matter of Natanya Sharay G., 232 AD2d 487, 487-488; Matter of Maldrina R., 219 AD2d 723, 724).

The mother’s remaining contentions are without merit. Altman, J.P., Krausman, Goldstein and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.