TYMEKE W. (ANONYMOUS). ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDRENS SERVICES, PETITIONER-res; ALEX G. (ANONYMOUS), ETC., ap; ET AL., res

MATTER OF TYMEKE W. (ANONYMOUS). ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDRENS SERVICES, PETITIONER-res; ALEX G. (ANONYMOUS), ETC., ap; ET AL., res — (PROCEEDING NO. 3) (DOCKET NOS. N-4753/08, N-4754/08, N-1913/09)In related child neglect proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, Alex G. appeals from an order of the Family Court, Richmond County (Wolff, J.), dated June 23, 2011, which denied, without a hearing, that branch of his motion which was to vacate so much of an order of fact-finding and disposition of the same court (McElrath, J.), dated October 1, 2009, as, upon his default in appearing, found that he neglected the child Tymeke W. and derivatively neglected the child Anyah W., and granted that branch of his motion which was to vacate so much of the same order of fact-finding and disposition as found that he derivatively neglected the child Dimitri G. only to the extent of directing a hearing to determine whether he was validly served with the petition relating to Dimitri G.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

MATTER OF TYMEKE W. (ANONYMOUS). ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDRENS SERVICES, PETITIONER-res; ALEX G. (ANONYMOUS), ETC., ap; ET AL., res — (PROCEEDING NO. 3) (DOCKET NOS. N-4753/08, N-4754/08, N-1913/09)In related child neglect proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, Alex G. appeals from an order of the Family Court, Richmond County (Wolff, J.), dated June 23, 2011, which denied, without a hearing, that branch of his motion which was to vacate so much of an order of fact-finding and disposition of the same court (McElrath, J.), dated October 1, 2009, as, upon his default in appearing, found that he neglected the child Tymeke W. and derivatively neglected the child Anyah W., and granted that branch of his motion which was to vacate so much of the same order of fact-finding and disposition as found that he derivatively neglected the child Dimitri G. only to the extent of directing a hearing to determine whether he was validly served with the petition relating to Dimitri G.

ORDERED that the appeal from so much of the order dated June 23, 2011, as granted that branch of the motion of Alex G. which was to vacate so much of the order of fact-finding and disposition as found that he derivatively neglected Dimitri G. only to the extent of directing a hearing to determine whether he was validly served with the petition relating to Dimitri G. is dismissed, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,

TYMEKE W. (ANONYMOUS). ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDRENS SERVICES, PETITIONER-res; ALEX G. (ANONYMOUS), ETC., ap; ET AL., res

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal