In re Demario J., 61 A.D.3d 1437 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009). · Go Syfert
Search
In re Demario J., 61 A.D.3d 1437 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 5× by 5 distinct cases, 2011–2014 · …failed to demonstrate that 'exceptional circumstances' required extension of the suspended judgment at p. 1438 ✓
19 citation events (19 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: In re Cornelius L.N. (nyappdiv, 2014-05-02)
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Cornelius L.N.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
However, 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 Lestariyah A. [Demetrious L.], 89 AD3d 1420, 1420-1421 [2011]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Cornelius L.N.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
However, 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 Lestariyah A. [Demetrious L.], 89 AD3d 1420, 1420-1421 [2011]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Grant v. Grant
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
We conclude that the court properly considered the factors set forth in Matter of Tropea v Tropea ( 87 NY2d 727, 740-741 [1996]) in determining that the mother failed to meet her burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the proposed relocation is in the children’s best interests (see Matter of Murphy v Peace, 72 AD3d 1626, 1626-1627 [2010]; Matter of Seyler v Hasfurter, 61 AD3d 1437, 1437 [2009]; Matter of Jones v Tarnawa, 26 AD3d 870, 871 [2006], lv denied 6 NY3d 714 [2006]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Grant v. Grant
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
We conclude that the court properly considered the factors set forth in Matter of Tropea v Tropea ( 87 NY2d 727, 740-741 [1996]) in determining that the mother failed to meet her burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the proposed relocation is in the children’s best interests (see Matter of Murphy v Peace, 72 AD3d 1626, 1626-1627 [2010]; Matter of Seyler v Hasfurter, 61 AD3d 1437, 1437 [2009]; Matter of Jones v Tarnawa, 26 AD3d 870, 871 [2006], lv denied 6 NY3d 714 [2006]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Williams v. Epps
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
Inasmuch as the mother “failed to establish that the lives of the mother and the child would be ‘enhanced economically [or] educationally by the move’ ” (Matter of Holtz v Weaver, 94 AD3d 1557, 1558 [2012], quoting Matter of Tropea v Tropea, 87 NY2d 727, 741 [1996]), and the credible evidence supports the court’s determination that the child’s relationship with the father and other relatives in the Buffalo area would be adversely affected by the proposed relocation (see Matter of Webb v Aaron, 79 AD3d 1761, 1761-1762 [2010]), the mother failed to meet her burden of establishing tha…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Williams v. Epps
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
Inasmuch as the mother “failed to establish that the lives of the mother and the child would be ‘enhanced economically [or] educationally by the move’ ” (Matter of Holtz v Weaver, 94 AD3d 1557, 1558 [2012], quoting Matter of Tropea v Tropea, 87 NY2d 727, 741 [1996]), and the credible evidence supports the court’s determination that the child’s relationship with the father and other relatives in the Buffalo area would be adversely affected by the proposed relocation (see Matter of Webb v Aaron, 79 AD3d 1761, 1761-1762 [2010]), the mother failed to meet her burden of establishing tha…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Lestariyah A.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · confidence medium
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]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Demario J. and Others, Infants. Erie County Department of Social Services, Respondent Michelle S.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Apr 24, 2009.
61 A.D.3d 1437
Cited by 5 opinions  |  Published

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Erie County (Patricia A. Maxwell, J.), entered November 2, 2007 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order, inter alia, terminated the parental rights of respondent.

[*1438] It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Respondent mother appeals from an order of disposition granting the petition seeking revocation of a suspended judgment and termination of her parental rights with respect to four of her children. We reject the mother’s contention that Family Court erred in refusing to extend the suspended judgment pursuant to Family Court Act § 633 (b). “The suspended judgment, having already been extended six months, was properly revoked where [the mother] admittedly failed to comply with its terms” (Matter of Robert Calvin R., 59 AD3d 265, 266 [2009]). 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]). Present—Scudder, P.J., Martoche, Fahey, Peradotto and Green, JJ.