In re Starcy G., 13 A.D.3d 532 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004). · Go Syfert
Search
In re Starcy G., 13 A.D.3d 532 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
9 citation events (9 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: In re Jack P. (nyappdiv, 2011-01-06)
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Jack P.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · confidence medium
Given these circumstances, including respondent’s prior failure to appear and the record of her disregard for the directives of the court, we find no abuse of discretion (see Matter of Starcy G., 13 AD3d 532, 532-533 [2004]; Matter of Andrew MM., 279 AD2d 654, 655-656 [2001]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Amalfitano v. Rosenberg
2d Cir. · 2008 · confidence medium
Id. at 208 . 9 The district court further found that the other 10 evidence, described above, of "a persistent pattern of unethical 11 behavior," id. at 203 , constituted a "chronic, extreme pattern of 12 legal delinquency," Izko Sportswear, 809 N.Y.S.2d at 122 , 25 13 A.D.3d at 532, to the extent (if any) such a finding was required 14 under New York law, see Amalfitano, 428 F. Supp. 2d at 207 n.36. 15 On appeal, Rosenberg does not appear to challenge the 16 finding that his deceit was intentional, and we assume that it 17 was. 18 A. Rosenberg's Successful Deceit 19 The district court conclude…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Amalfitano v. Rosenberg
2d Cir. · 2008 · confidence medium
Id. at 208 . 9 The district court further found that the other 10 evidence, described above, of "a persistent pattern of unethical 11 behavior," id. at 203 , constituted a "chronic, extreme pattern of 12 legal delinquency," Izko Sportswear, 809 N.Y.S.2d at 122 , 25 13 A.D.3d at 532, to the extent (if any) such a finding was required 14 under New York law, see Amalfitano, 428 F. Supp. 2d at 207 n.36. 15 On appeal, Rosenberg does not appear to challenge the 16 finding that his deceit was intentional, and we assume that it 17 was. 18 A. Rosenberg's Successful Deceit 19 The district court conclude…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Nicholas S. Westchester county Department of Social Services
N.Y. App. Div. · 2007 · confidence medium
In light of the mother’s history of nonappearance for at least two prior court dates and her knowledge of the hearing date (see Matter of Starcy G., 13 AD3d 532, 532-533 [2004]), the Family Court properly proceeded with the dispositional hearing in the mother’s absence (see Family Ct Act § 1042).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Joseph O.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2006 · confidence medium
This constituted excessive corporal punishment which subjected Joseph to a substantial risk of physical and emotional harm (see Matter of Sheneika V., 20 AD3d 541 , 542 [2005]; Matter of Starcy G., 13 AD3d 532, 533 [2004]; Matter of Sal D., 307 AD2d 261, 262, 263 [2003]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Michelle L.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2005 · confidence medium
Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the finding that the subject children Michelle L. and Terrell L. were neglected based on an incident of domestic violence committed by the appellant and the appellant’s drug use was supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see Matter of Starcy G., 13 AD3d 532, 533 [2004]; Matter of Francis S., 296 AD2d 507 [2002]; Matter of Carlos M., 293 AD2d 617, 619 [2002]; Matter of Nassau County Dept. of Social Servs. v Denise J., 206 AD2d 372 [1994], affd 87 NY2d 73 [1995]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Starcy G., a Child Alleged to be Neglected. Suffolk County Department of Social Services, Respondent James G., Appellant Joy Ann G.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Dec 20, 2004.
13 A.D.3d 532
2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15574
Cited by 7 opinions  |  Published

In a child protective proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the father appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of disposition of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Lehman, J.), entered April 17, 2003, as, upon a fact-finding order of the same court entered March 6, 2003, made after a hearing, finding that he had neglected the subject child, placed the child in the petitioner’s custody until September 1, 2003. The appeal brings up for review the fact-finding order entered March 6, 2003.

Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order of disposition as placed the subject child in the petitioner’s custody until September 1, 2003, is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,

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

The appeal from so much of the order of disposition as placed the subject child in the custody of the petitioner must be dismissed as academic because that order expired by its own terms on September 1, 2003, and has been replaced by subsequent orders extending placement (see Matter of Garth S., 309 AD2d 940 [2003]; Matter of Dareth O., 304 AD2d 667 [2003]). Similarly, the father’s claim that the Family Court improperly proceeded with the dispositional hearing in his absence is academic because that hearing provided the basis for the dispositional order, which expired (see Matter of Mikayla U., 266 AD2d 747 [1999]). In any event, the Family Court properly proceeded[*533] with the hearing, at which the father’s counsel and the Law Guardian were present (see Family Ct Act §§ 1042, 1052 [a]; Matter of Cassandra M., 260 AD2d 961 [1999]), in light of the father’s history of nonappearance and tardiness for numerous prior court dates and his knowledge of the hearing date (cf. Matter of W. Children, 256 AD2d 412 [1998]).

While the appeal from so much of the order of disposition as placed the subject child in the custody of the petitioner is dismissed as academic, review of the finding of neglect in the fact-finding order entered March 6, 2003, is not academic as a finding of neglect constitutes a permanent and significant stigma which might indirectly affect the appellant’s status in any future proceedings (see Matter of Garth S., supra; Matter of Dareth O., supra).

The Family Court properly determined that the father neglected his daughter. The petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that the father subjected the child to excessive corporal punishment as well as exposed her to domestic violence (see Matter of Dareth O., supra; Matter of Jeremiah M., 290 AD2d 450 [2002]; Matter of Jasmine R., 258 AD2d 361 [1999]).

The father’s remaining contention is not properly before this Court. Florio, J.E, Krausman, Cozier and Mastro, JJ., concur.