Matter of Charles

6 Citing cases

  1. Matter of Kacey

    223 A.D.2d 876 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)   Cited 8 times

    Evidence at the hearing, including testimony from respondent herself, established that respondent's behavior had not improved since her initial placement with petitioner. Specifically, the proof indicated that respondent continued to act in a manipulative and deceitful fashion by engaging in behavior such as, inter alia, stealing, leaving the facility without permission and participating in a prank whereby false reports to the police were called in using the 911 emergency telephone number. Under the circumstances presented here, we find that Family Court did not abuse its discretion in extending respondent's placement ( cf., Matter of Charles BB., 179 A.D.2d 904, 905). Cardona, P.J., Mercure, White and Peters, JJ., concur.

  2. In re Charlene TT.

    217 A.D.2d 274 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)   Cited 21 times

    Ultimately, Family Court (Frawley, J.H.O.) granted a temporary extension until December 15, 1993, apparently pending resolution of the permanent neglect proceedings. Although the father's notice of appeal appears to predate the order from which his appeal has been taken, in the exercise of our discretion and in the interest of justice, we will treat the premature notice of appeal as valid and address the merits (see, Family Ct Act ยง 1118; CPLR 5520 [c]; Matter of Charles BB., 179 A.D.2d 904, 905).

  3. Cullen v. Lake Placid Vacation Corporation

    221 A.D.2d 854 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)   Cited 3 times

    Following discovery, defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against them. Supreme Court granted defendants' motion and this appeal by plaintiff followed. Although plaintiff's notice of appeal appears to be premature, we will exercise our discretion and treat such notice as valid ( see, Matter of Charles BB., 179 A.D.2d 904, 905). We affirm.

  4. Matter of Jeremy

    220 A.D.2d 908 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)   Cited 13 times

    Respondent now appeals, focusing primarily on the quality of his former Law Guardian's representation and Family Court's order of disposition. Although the notice of appeal is premature, in the interest of justice we will deem it valid ( see, Matter of Charles BB., 179 A.D.2d 904, 905). Respondent's first argument is that he was denied the right to present a defense since neither his Law Guardian nor Family Court ordered a psychological evaluation, which may have shown that his behavior was not willful as he may suffer from a learning or developmental disability.

  5. Matter of Joseph

    214 A.D.2d 794 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)   Cited 8 times

    This appeal by the Law Guardian followed. Although the notice of appeal is premature in that it was filed prior to entry of the order from which the appeal is taken, we exercise our discretion and, in the interest of justice, deem the notice of appeal to be valid (see, Matter of Charles BB., 179 A.D.2d 904, 905). It is well settled that "[a] parent or other responsible party may only be held accountable * * * for the abusive [or neglectful] acts of another party * * * if he or she `knew or should reasonably have known' that the child was in danger" (Matter of Robert YY., 199 A.D.2d 690, 692, quoting Matter of Sara X., 122 A.D.2d 795, 796, appeal dismissed 69 N.Y.2d 707).

  6. Matter of Jason

    208 A.D.2d 1015 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)   Cited 3 times

    The record indicates that Jason's placement at the Academy was to conclude on August 30, 1993, and although he apparently was granted a scholarship that would have permitted him to remain at the Academy until the conclusion of the 1993-1994 academic year, we have been advised that Jason voluntarily returned home on February 17, 1994. Thus, this appeal, insofar as it relates to the requested extension of placement, is moot and, in our view, no exception to the mootness doctrine lies under the circumstances present here (see generally, Matter of Eric O., 205 A.D.2d 878; Matter of Richard TT., 197 A.D.2d 777; Matter of Darby C., 175 A.D.2d 959, lv. denied 78 N.Y.2d 862; compare, Matter of Charles BB. [Carlos BB.], 179 A.D.2d 904). As to Jason's assertion that the Academy was authorized to petition for an extension of placement pursuant to Family Court Act ยง 756-a (a), this issue is not properly before this Court.