In re Lourdes O., 52 A.D.3d 203 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008). · Go Syfert
Search
In re Lourdes O., 52 A.D.3d 203 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
20 citation events (20 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Treatment trajectory · 2008 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2008 2017 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 14 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (rule) Matter of M.A.F. (M.F.) (3×)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2025 · confidence medium
The father failed to demonstrate the "exceptional circumstances" necessary to extend a suspended judgment (Family Court Act § 633[b]), and the record establishes that further efforts to reunite the father and the child would not be in the child's best interests ( see Matter of Anthony Wayne S. , 106 AD3d 463 , 464 [1st Dept 2013]; Matter of Lourdes O. , 52 AD3d 203, 204 [1st Dept 2008]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Frederick T. (Maria T.)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2021 · confidence medium
The record shows that the mother failed to consistently visit with the children, participate in individual and dyadic therapy, obtain suitable housing for herself and the children, and obtain a source of income ( see Matter of Lourdes O. , 52 AD3d 203, 203 [1st Dept 2008]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Kaniya D. (Queleen D.)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2018 · confidence medium
Moreover, the mother failed to demonstrate that exceptional circumstances exist that would warrant the court's extension of the suspended judgment in the child's best interests ( see Matter of Lourdes O ., 52 AD3d 203, 204 [1st Dept 2008]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) In re Anthony Wayne S.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Moreover, respondent failed to demonstrate that there are exceptional circumstances warranting an extension of the suspended judgment (see Matter of Lourdes O., 52 AD3d 203, 204 [1st Dept 2008]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) In re Anthony Wayne S.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Moreover, respondent failed to demonstrate that there are exceptional circumstances warranting an extension of the suspended judgment (see Matter of Lourdes O., 52 AD3d 203, 204 [1st Dept 2008]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Wayne S.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Moreover, the father has failed to demonstrate that exceptional circumstances exist requiring the court to extend the suspended judgment or that a fourth attempt to reunite the family is in the best interests of the children (s ee Matter of Lourdes O., 52 AD3d 203, 204 [1st Dept 2008]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Wayne S.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Moreover, the father has failed to demonstrate that exceptional circumstances exist requiring the court to extend the suspended judgment or that a fourth attempt to reunite the family is in the best interests of the children (s ee Matter of Lourdes O., 52 AD3d 203, 204 [1st Dept 2008]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) In re Steven A.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
Any lapses by the agency did not relieve respondent of her responsibility to comply with the terms of the suspended judgment (Matter of Lourdes O., 52 AD3d 203, 203 [1st Dept 2008]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) In re Steven A.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
Any lapses by the agency did not relieve respondent of her responsibility to comply with the terms of the suspended judgment (Matter of Lourdes O., 52 AD3d 203, 203 [1st Dept 2008]).
discussed Cited "see" In re Lestariyah A.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
Because the father “failed to demonstrate that ‘exceptional circumstances’ required extension of the suspended judgment” (Matter of Demario J., 61 AD3d 1437, 1438 [2009], quoting Family Ct Act § 633 [b]; see Matter of Lourdes O., 52 AD3d 203, 204 [2008]), we conclude that Family Court did not abuse or improvidently exercise its discretion in refusing to extend the suspended judgment and in revoking it (see Matter of Leala T., 55 AD3d 997, 998 [2008]; Matter of Brent H., 34 AD3d 1367 , 1368 [2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 802 [2007]; Matter of Ricky Joseph V., 24 AD3d 683, 684 [2005]).
discussed Cited "see" A., LESTARIYAH, MTR. OF
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
Because the father “failed to demonstrate that ‘exceptional circumstances’ required extension of the suspended judgment” (Matter of Demario J., 61 AD3d 1437, 1438 , quoting Family Ct Act § 633 [b]; see Matter of Lourdes O., 52 AD3d 203, 204 ), we conclude that Family Court did not abuse or improvidently exercise its discretion in refusing to extend the suspended judgment and in revoking it (see Matter of Leala T., 55 AD3d 997, 998 ; Matter of Brent H., 34 AD3d 1367, 1368 , lv denied 8 NY3d 802 ; Matter of Ricky Joseph V., 24 AD3d 683, 684 ).
cited Cited "see" In re Demario J.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high
In addition, the mother failed to demonstrate that “exceptional circumstances” required extension of the suspended judgment (Family Ct Act § 633 [b]; see Matter of Lourdes O., 52 AD3d 203 [2008]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." In re Isaiah M.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · signal: see also · confidence medium
The record shows that respondent failed to consistently visit with the children, participate in individual therapy, obtain suitable housing for herself and the children, and obtain a source of income (see id.; see also Matter of Lourdes O., 52 AD3d 203, 203 [1st Dept 2008]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." In re Isaiah M.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · signal: see also · confidence medium
The record shows that respondent failed to consistently visit with the children, participate in individual therapy, obtain suitable housing for herself and the children, and obtain a source of income (see id.; see also Matter of Lourdes O., 52 AD3d 203, 203 [1st Dept 2008]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Lourdes O. and Another, Infants. William O., Appellant Administration for Children's Services
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jun 3, 2008.
52 A.D.3d 203
Cited by 18 opinions  |  Published

Orders of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Sidney Gribetz, J.), entered on or about August 2, 2006, which, to the extent appealed from, terminated respondent father’s parental rights to the subject children upon a finding that he violated the terms of a suspended judgment, and committed custody and guardianship of the children to petitioner Commissioner of the Administration for Children’s Services for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The determination that respondent violated the conditions of the suspended judgment is supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see Matter of Shawna DD., 289 AD2d 892, 894 [2001]), including his failure to work diligently to obtain suitable housing for himself and his children, and to attend individual therapy and his children’s mental health appointments (see Matter of Aparicio Rodrigo B., 29 AD3d 351 [2006]). Lapses by the agency due to a transfer of the case from one agency to another did not relieve respondent of his responsibility to comply with the terms of the suspended judgment (see Matter of Jessica J., 44 AD3d 1132, 1133-1134 [2007]).

[*204] The circumstances presented do not warrant an extension of the suspended judgment for an additional year where respondent failed to demonstrate the “exceptional circumstances” required to extend a suspended judgment (Family Ct Act § 633 [b]), and where the record establishes that further efforts to reunite the family would not be in the best interests of the children (see Matter of Rigoberto M., 18 AD3d 405 [2005]). Concur— Lippman, PJ., Mazzarelli, Williams, Sweeny and Acosta, JJ.