Karen O. v. Lutheran Soc. Servs. (In re Kharyn O.)

Citation2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 09180,90 A.D.3d 541,934 N.Y.S.2d 705
PartiesIn re KHARYN O., A Dependent Child Under the Age of Years, etc.,Karen O., Respondent–Appellant,Lutheran Social Services, Petitioner–Respondent.
Decision Date20 December 2011
CourtNew York Supreme Court Appellate Division

2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 09180
90 A.D.3d 541
934 N.Y.S.2d 705

In re KHARYN O., A Dependent Child Under the Age of Years, etc.,Karen O., Respondent–Appellant,Lutheran Social Services, Petitioner–Respondent.

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

Dec. 20, 2011.


Lisa H. Blitman, New York, for appellant.

Carrieri & Carrieri, P.C., Mineola (Ralph R. Carrieri of counsel), for respondent.

Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Judith Waksberg and Laura Dillon of counsel), attorney for the child.

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Gloria Sosa–Lintner, J.), entered on or about March 3, 2010, which terminated respondent mother's parental rights to the subject child following her admission of permanent neglect, and committed the guardianship and custody of the child to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of Administration for Children's *706 Services for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

A preponderance of the evidence supports Family Court's finding that it is in the child's best interests to terminate respondent's parental rights and free the child for adoption ( see Family Ct. Act § 631; Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 N.Y.2d 136, 147–148, 481 N.Y.S.2d 26, 470 N.E.2d 824 [1984] ). The evidence at the dispositional hearing shows that while respondent had made progress since her release from prison in October 2008 and had been compliant with services for several months, she thereafter failed to complete a drug treatment program, failed to visit the child for two months, and was incarcerated in September 2009 for a parole violation. By contrast, the child was doing well in the home of her foster mother, who wished to adopt her. Accordingly, a suspended judgment was not warranted ( see e.g. Matter of Jessica Victoria S., 47 A.D.3d 428, 849 N.Y.S.2d 237 [2008]; Matter of Savannah V., 38 A.D.3d 354, 355, 832 N.Y.S.2d 518 [2007] ).

GONZALEZ, P.J., MAZZARELLI, ANDRIAS, SWEENY, ROMÁN, JJ., concur.

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • 534 East 11th St. Hous. Dev. Fund Corp. v. Hendrick
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • December 20, 2011
    ...Slip Op. 0918190 A.D.3d 541935 N.Y.S.2d 23534 EAST 11TH STREET HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FUND CORPORATION, Plaintiff–Respondent,v.Peter HENDRICK, Defendant–Appellant.Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.Dec. 20, [935 N.Y.S.2d 24] Finder Novick Kerrigan LLP, New York (Thom......
  • Another Slice, Inc. v. 3620 Broadway Investors LLC
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • December 20, 2011
    ...Slip Op. 0920090 A.D.3d 559934 N.Y.S.2d 705ANOTHER SLICE, INC., Plaintiff–Appellant,v.3620 BROADWAY INVESTORS LLC, Defendant–Respondent.Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.Dec. 20, Novick, Edelstein, Lubell, Reisman, Wasserman & Leventhal, P.C., Yonkers (Lawrence S......

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