IN RE: ONEALYAH M. (2024)

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

IN RE: ONEALYAH M., Petitioner-Appellant, v. MICHAEL G.E., Respondent-Respondent.

1633

Decided: February 13, 2024

Webber, J.P., Singh, Kennedy, Scarpulla, Rosado, JJ.

Rhea G. Friedman, New York, for appellant.

Order of fact-finding and disposition (one paper), Family Court, New York County (Hasa A. Kingo, J.), entered on or about March 29, 2022, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, after fact-finding and dispositional hearings, determined that petitioner was not entitled to restitution, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner failed to sustain her burden of demonstrating entitlement to restitution by offering any competent evidence that her eye condition was caused by the respondent's conduct between 2012 and 2014, that treatment was required and the cost thereof (compare Matter of Victoria C. v. Higinio C., 1 AD3d 173, 174 [1st Dept 2003]; see Family Court Act § 834). Petitioner waived any complaint about the manner in which the hearing was conducted by willingly participating in the hearing without objection (see Matter of Tonya B. v. Matthew B., 90 AD3d 463, 463–464 [1st Dept 2011]).

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network