Admin. for Children's Servs. v. Jesse W. (In re Jesse W.), 2019–08628

CourtNew York Supreme Court Appellate Division
Citation189 A.D.3d 848,136 N.Y.S.3d 117
Docket NumberDocket Nos. N-22880-17, N-22881-17,2019–08628,2019-08629
Parties In THE MATTER OF JESSE W. (Anonymous). Administration for Children's Services, respondent; v. Jesse W. (Anonymous), appellant. (Proceeding No. 1) In the Matter of Aja W. (Anonymous). Administration for Children's Services, respondent; v. Jesse W. (Anonymous), appellant. (Proceeding No. 2)
Decision Date02 December 2020

189 A.D.3d 848
136 N.Y.S.3d 117

In THE MATTER OF JESSE W. (Anonymous).

Administration for Children's Services, respondent;
v.
Jesse W. (Anonymous), appellant.
(Proceeding No. 1)

In the Matter of Aja W. (Anonymous).
Administration for Children's Services, respondent;
v.
Jesse W. (Anonymous), appellant.
(Proceeding No. 2)

2019–08628
2019-08629
Docket Nos.
N-22880-17, N-22881-17

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Submitted—October 27, 2020
December 2, 2020


Cheryl Charles–Duval, Brooklyn, NY, for appellant.

James E. Johnson, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Scott Shorr and Eric Lee of counsel), for respondent.

Seth Arthur Myles, Brooklyn, NY, attorney for the children.

RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, BETSY BARROS, PAUL WOOTEN, JJ.

136 N.Y.S.3d 118

DECISION & ORDER

In related proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the father appeals from (1) a decision of the Family Court, Richmond County (Alison M. Hamanjian, J.), dated January 16, 2019, and (2) an order of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Erik S. Pitchal, J.), dated May 31, 2019. The order of disposition, upon an order of fact-finding dated January 30, 2019, finding that the father neglected the subject children, released the children to the mother's care and placed the father under the supervision of the Administration for Children's Services for a period of 12 months.

ORDERED that the appeal from the decision is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as no appeal lies from a decision (see Matter of Ariana M. [Edward M.] , 179 A.D.3d 923, 118 N.Y.S.3d 215 ); and it is further,

ORDERED that the appeal from so much of the order of disposition as released the children to the mother's care and placed the father under the supervision of the Administration for Children's Services for a period of 12 months is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,

ORDERED that the order of disposition is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.

By petitions dated August 18, 2017, the Administration for Children's Services (hereinafter ACS) alleged that the father had neglected the subject children. Following a fact-finding hearing, in a written decision, the Family...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Suffolk Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Michelle C. (In re Mia S.), 2020-01373
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • December 7, 2022
    ...is not required to establish that the child suffered actual harm or was at imminent risk of harm" ( Matter of Jesse W. [Jesse W.], 189 A.D.3d 848, 849–850, 136 N.Y.S.3d 117 [internal quotation marks omitted]).The 2021 amendment was part of the Marihuana Regulation and Taxation Act (hereinaf......
  • In re Mia S., 2020-01373
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • December 7, 2022
    ...is not required to establish that the child suffered actual harm or was at imminent risk of harm" (Matter of Jesse W. [Jesse W.], 189 A.D.3d 848, 849-850 [internal quotation marks omitted]). The 2021 amendment was part of the Marihuana Regulation and Taxation Act (hereinafter the MRTA), whi......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT