Matter of Lynik Jomae E.

Annotate this Case
Matter of Lynik Jomae E. 2013 NY Slip Op 08390 Decided on December 17, 2013 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on December 17, 2013
Friedman, J.P., Acosta, Renwick, Manzanet-Daniels, Gische, JJ.
11371

[*1]In re Lynik Jomae E., A Dependent Child Under the Age of Eighteen Years, etc., Lynik Jomae E., Respondent-Appellant, Harlem Dowling Children's Services, Petitioner-Respondent.




Tennille M. Tatum-Evans, New York, for appellant.
Law Offices of James M. Abramson, PLLC, New York (Dawn
M. Orsatti of counsel), for respondent.
Richard L. Herzfeld, P.C., New York (Richard L. Herzfeld of
counsel), attorney for the child.

Order, Family Court, New York County (Clark V. Richardson, J.), entered on or about June 7, 2012, which, following a fact-finding hearing, inter alia, determined that respondent father was a notice father whose consent was not required for the adoption of the subject child, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

There exists no basis to disturb the court's determination that respondent's consent to the adoption of the child was not required. The record supports the findings that respondent had not provided a "fair and reasonable sum" toward the child's support, although he had the means, and that he did not communicate with the child on a regular basis (Domestic Relations Law § 111[d]). Respondent's incarceration did not absolve him of these parental obligations (see Matter of Jaden Christopher W.-McC. [Michael L. McC.], 100 AD3d 486 [1st Dept 2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 858 [2013]), and his testimony concerning previous support provided to the [*2]child was not consistent (see Matter of Aaron P., 61 AD3d 448 [1st Dept 2009]).

We have considered respondent's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: DECEMBER 17, 2013

CLERK

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.