People v. Stachnik, 101 A.D.3d 1593 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012). · Go Syfert
People v. Stachnik, 101 A.D.3d 1593 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
40 citation events (40 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Matter of Noah C. (Greg C.) (nyappdiv, 2024-03-15)
Treatment trajectory · 2012 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2012 2019 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Noah C. (Greg C.) (3×)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2024 · confidence medium
The attorneys for the oldest child, the second oldest child, and the third oldest child now report that, in the intervening 20 months since the entry of the order on appeal, among other things, the oldest child's kinship guardianship has been terminated, the second oldest child's adoptive placement has been disrupted inasmuch as he repeatedly absconded from the foster parents' home and his paternal grandmother has been awarded custody of him, and there is a pending custody petition by the paternal grandmother for the third oldest child, who will turn 14 years old later this year and remains st…
discussed Cited "see" In re Skye N.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · signal: see · confidence high
Contrary to the father’s further contention, petitioner established that, despite its diligent efforts to reunite the father with the children, the father failed to plan for the children’s future “by neither acknowledging nor meaningfully addressing the conditions that led to the children’s removal in the first instance, namely, the underlying sexual abuse of another older daughter” (Matter of Iasha Tameeka McL. [Herbert McL.], 135 AD3d 601, 601 [2016]; see Matter of Emerald L.C. [David C.], 101 AD3d 1679, 1680 [2012]), and by failing to “provide any ‘realistic and feasible’ al…
discussed Cited "see" In re Skye N.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · signal: see · confidence high
Contrary to the father’s further contention, petitioner established that, despite its diligent efforts to reunite the father with the children, the father failed to plan for the children’s future “by neither acknowledging nor meaningfully addressing the conditions that led to the children’s removal in the first instance, namely, the underlying sexual abuse of another older daughter” (Matter of Iasha Tameeka McL. [Herbert McL.], 135 AD3d 601, 601 [2016]; see Matter of Emerald L.C. [David C.], 101 AD3d 1679, 1680 [2012]), and by failing to “provide any ‘realistic and feasible’ al…
discussed Cited "see" N., SKYE, MTR. OF
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · signal: see · confidence high
Contrary to the father’s further contention, petitioner established that, despite its diligent efforts to reunite the father with the children, the father failed to plan for the children’s future “by neither acknowledging nor meaningfully addressing the conditions that led to the children’s removal in the first instance, namely, the underlying sexual abuse of another older daughter” (Matter of Iasha Tameeka McL. [Herbert McL.], 135 AD3d 601, 601 ; see Matter of Emerald L.C. [David C.], 101 AD3d 1679, 1680 ), and by failing to “provide any ‘realistic and feasible’ alternative to…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Matter of Rodcliffe M., Jr. (Rodcliffe M., Sr.)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2024 · signal: see also · confidence low
We reject that contention inasmuch as the resources proposed by the father "were not realistic alternatives to foster care" ( Matter of Jaylysia S.-W. , 28 AD3d 1228, 1229 [4th Dept 2006] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see also Matter of Gena S. [Karen M.] , 101 AD3d 1593 , 1594 [4th Dept 2012], lv dismissed 21 NY3d 975 [2013]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Matter of Beulah J. (Darlene H.--Johnny J.)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2021 · signal: see also · confidence low
We agree with the father and Ebony J., however, that a new dispositional hearing for that child is required because terminating the father's parental rights to Ebony J. makes her a legal orphan and because the AFC who jointly represented the children at trial failed to zealously advocate for Ebony J.'s position concerning adoption and focused instead on her sisters' conflicting position on that issue ( see Matter of Dominique A.W. , 17 AD3d 1038, 1039-1041 [4th Dept 2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 706 [2005]; see also Matter of Gena S. [ Karen M. ], 101 AD3d 1593 , 1595 [4th Dept 2012], lv dismissed 2…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Stanley Stachnik
Appeal No. 2.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Dec 21, 2012.
101 A.D.3d 1593
Published

Same memorandum as in People v Stachnik (101 AD3d 1590 [2012]). Present — Fahey, J.P., Peradotto, Carni, Whalen and Martoche, JJ.