discussed Cited "see, e.g." In re AB (Matter of Hofbauer, 47 NY2d 648, 655 [1979], citing Matter of Bennett v Jeffreys, 40 NY2d 543, 546 [1976]; Quilloin v Walcott, 434 US 246, 255 [1978], reh denied 435 US 918 [1978].) While this right is not absolute, “great deference must be accorded a parent’s choice as to the mode of medical treatment to be undertaken and the physician selected to administer the same.” (Hofbauer at 655.) In fact, the “filial bond is one of the strongest * * * and most inviolable of all relationships.” (Id., citing Matter of Corey L. v Martin L., 45 NY2d 383, 392 [1978]; see also Weber v Stony Brook…

discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Roselle In tracing the legislative history of article 10, Justice Ritter, writing for the Appellate Division, demonstrates that the role of the District Attorney in a child protective proceeding devolved into that of a "necessary party to the proceeding” *356 (Family Ct Act § 254 [b]), 4 without standing to originate an article 10 proceeding absent leave of the court (see, Family Ct Act § 1032; see also, Matter of Weber v Stony Brook Hosp., 60 NY2d 208 , cert denied 464 US 1026 ).

cited Cited "see, e.g." People v. E.G. See, e.g., Weber v. Stony Brook Hospital (1983), 60 N.Y.2d 208 , 456 N.E. 1186 , 469 N.Y.S.2d 63 , cert. denied (1983), 464 U.S. 1026 , 78 L.

discussed Cited "see, e.g." In Re EG See, e.g., Weber v. Stony Brook Hospital (1983), 60 N.Y.2d 208 , 456 N.E. 1186 , 469 N.Y.S.2d 63 , cert. denied (1983), 464 U.S. 1026 , 78 L.Ed.2d 732 , *780 104 S.Ct. 560 ; In re D.L.E. (1980), 200 Colo. 244 , 614 P.2d 873 , later appeal (Colo. 1982), 645 P.2d 271 ; In re Seiferth (1955), 309 N.Y. 80 , 127 N.E.2d 820 ; In re Green (1972), 448 Pa. 338 , 292 A.2d 387 , later appeal (1973), 452 Pa. 373 , 307 A.2d 279 ; In re Frank (1952), 41 Wash.2d 294 , 248 P.2d 553 ; In re Hudson (1942), 13 Wash.2d 673 , 126 P.2d 765 ; Aronson v. Superior Court (1987), 191 Cal. App.3d 294 , 236 Cal. Rptr. 347…