In re Blaize F., 74 A.D.3d 1454 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010). · Go Syfert
Search
In re Blaize F., 74 A.D.3d 1454 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases · …family court is authorized to make successive extensions of supervision upon a hearing and for good cause shown, and we generally do not disturb such an extension unless it lacks a sound basis in the record at p. 1455 ⚠ not in text
10 citation events (10 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Matter of Beeken v. Fredenburg (nyappdiv, 2016-12-29)
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Beeken v. Fredenburg
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
As noted previously, the grandmother neither testified, called any witnesses nor otherwise opposed the mother’s request for unsupervised visitations and, at the close of the hearing, the attorney for the child fully supported the visitation schedule proposed by the mother (cf. Matter of Blaize F. [Christopher F.], 74 AD3d 1454, 1454-1455 [2010]; Matter of Mark P. v Jamie Q., 64 AD3d 921, 923 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 706 [2009]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Cheyenne BB.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
“Family Court is authorized to make successive extensions of supervision upon a hearing and for good cause shown, and we generally do not disturb such an extension unless it lacks a sound basis in the record” (Matter of Blaize F. [Christopher F.], 74 AD3d 1454, 1455 [2010] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Cheyenne BB.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
“Family Court is authorized to make successive extensions of supervision upon a hearing and for good cause shown, and we generally do not disturb such an extension unless it lacks a sound basis in the record” (Matter of Blaize F. [Christopher F.], 74 AD3d 1454, 1455 [2010] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Kobe D.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
In light of these facts, and the complete absence of testimony as to any inappropriate behavior by respondent during the visitation, Family Court’s restriction of the supervised visitation plan and refusal to grant any unsupervised visitation is not supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Blaize F. [Christopher F.], 74 AD3d 1454, 1455 [2010]; compare Matter of Brandon DD. [Jessica EE.], 75 AD3d 815, 816-817 [2010]; Matter of Isaac Q., 53 AD3d 731, 731-732 [2008]; see also Matter of Johnson v Johnson, 13 AD3d 678, 678-679 [2004]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Kobe D.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
In light of these facts, and the complete absence of testimony as to any inappropriate behavior by respondent during the visitation, Family Court’s restriction of the supervised visitation plan and refusal to grant any unsupervised visitation is not supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Blaize F. [Christopher F.], 74 AD3d 1454, 1455 [2010]; compare Matter of Brandon DD. [Jessica EE.], 75 AD3d 815, 816-817 [2010]; Matter of Isaac Q., 53 AD3d 731, 731-732 [2008]; see also Matter of Johnson v Johnson, 13 AD3d 678, 678-679 [2004]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Kyle FF.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · confidence medium
Here, even though the parties agreed with the recommendation made by the Probation Department, Family Court called and extensively questioned the author of the predispositional report, secured the production of additional documentary evidence and then, according essentially no weight to the underlying recommendation and the parties’ expressed wishes, crafted a disposition based almost entirely upon proof that it elicited — a practice with which this Court previously has expressed its disapproval (s ee Matter of Keaghn Y., 84 AD3d at 1479-1480 ; Matter of Blaize F. [Christopher F.], 74 AD3d…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Keaghn Y. (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · confidence medium
While such a practice, coupled with the court’s involvement in the examination of the witnesses who testified at the hearing, may, in some circumstances, present legitimate questions regarding the court’s impartiality (see Matter of Blaize F. [Christopher F.], 74 AD3d 1454, 1454-1455 [2010]; Matter of Stampfler v Snow, 290 AD2d 595, 596 [2002]), we note that neither party opposed the court’s decision to issue the subpoena or objected to its questioning of witnesses and, therefore, such a challenge has not been preserved for our review (see Matter of Borggreen v Borggreen, 13 AD3d 756, 75…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Olivia SS.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2010 · confidence medium
Finally, although Family Court’s conclusion that respondent’s use of methadone by prescription to treat his chronic pain affected his ability to care for the children lacked a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Blaize F., 74 AD3d 1454, 1455 [2010]), respondent’s appeal from the December 2009 order is now moot.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Blaize F. and Others, Children Alleged to be Abused and/or Neglected. Clinton County Department of Social Services, Respondent Christopher F.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jun 3, 2010.
74 A.D.3d 1454
Lahtinen.
Cited by 8 opinions  |  Published
Lahtinen, J.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Clinton County (Lawliss, J.), entered October 13, 2009, which granted petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act article 10, to extend the supervision of respondent.

The underlying facts are set forth in earlier appeals (see Matter of Blaize F., 64 AD3d 936 [2009]; Matter of Blaize F, 55 AD3d 974 [2008]; Matter of Blaize F, 50 AD3d 1182 [2008]; Matter of Blaize F, 48 AD3d 1007 [2008]). Briefly stated and as is currently relevant, petitioner brought this proceeding to extend supervision regarding respondent’s two stepdaughters and, in that petition, it also requested that respondent be granted unsupervised visitation with his son, Blaize F. At the ensuing hearing, both petitioner and the attorney for Blaize advocated for unsupervised visitation. Petitioner’s witnesses unequivocally supported permitting respondent to have unsupervised visitation with Blaize and described in detail the positive interaction between respondent and Blaize as well as respondent’s successful completion of pertinent programs. With no[*1455] proof having been presented opposing unsupervised visitation, Family Court nonetheless produced and admitted into evidence its own exhibit, a Canadian study entitled “A Meta-Analysis of the Effectiveness of Treatment of Sexual Offenders: Risk, Need, and Responsibility.” Subsequently, in the closing statement, petitioner stated that it had erred in including Blaize in the petition and acknowledged that the petition should be dismissed as to him. However, Family Court rendered a decision (that included a lengthy quote from its exhibit) in which it granted the petition as to Blaize and extended the existing requirement for supervised visitation. Respondent appeals.

We reverse as to Blaize. “Family Court is authorized to make successive extensions of supervision ‘upon a hearing and for good cause shown’ ” (Matter of Caleb L., 289 AD2d 902, 902 [2001], quoting Family Ct Act § 1054 [b]), and we generally do not disturb such an extension “unless it lacks a sound basis in the record” (Matter of Amanda WW., 43 AD3d 1256, 1257 [2007] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see Matter of Blaize F., 64 AD3d at 937). Here, all the witnesses and all the parties supported unsupervised visitation. Petitioner acknowledged that it should not have even brought the proceeding as to Blaize and agreed with respondent that the petition should be dismissed. Family Court’s production of its own exhibit and then relying thereon in disregard to every witness and all the parties was improper (see generally People v Arnold, 98 NY2d 63, 67-69 [2002]). The court’s determination that the witnesses were unreliable and lacked credibility—one of whom it had characterized in an earlier matter involving these parties as “credible and highly reliable”—is unsupported by the record. Finally, we note that the attorney for Blaize has submitted a passionate plea on behalf of the child—now a six-foot-tall teenager—expressing “terrible frustration” with the limitations imposed and imploring that the petition be dismissed so that he can spend meaningful time with his father. Since the record does not contain a sound or substantial basis supporting the petition and further reveáis that Family Court acted arbitrarily, we agree that the petition as to Blaize must be dismissed.

Spain, J.P., Rose, Garry and Egan Jr., JJ, concur. Ordered that the order is modified, on the law and the facts, without costs, by reversing so much thereof as granted the petition with respect to Blaize F; petition dismissed as to Blaize F.; and, as so modified, affirmed.