32:T4f2,{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"Legislation","name":"In re the Adoption of David A. C., 372 N.E.2d 42","datePublished":"1977-11-17","legislationDate":"1977-11-17","citation":"In re the Adoption of David A. C., 372 N.E.2d 42 (NY 1977)","countryOfOrigin":"USA","jurisdiction":"New York Court of Appeals","description":"Read the full text of In re the Adoption of David A. C. (In re the Adoption of David A. C., 372 N.E.2d 42 (NY 1977)). This legal opinion, filed in 1977-11-17, from the New York Court of Appeals discusses important legal matters. Access this case and related legal documents on Midpage, an AI-powered legal research platform.","mainEntityOfPage":{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https://app.midpage.ai/document/in-re-the-adoption-of--5531473"},"author":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Midpage"},"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Midpage"},"url":"https://app.midpage.ai/document/in-re-the-adoption-of--5531473","isPartOf":{"@type":"WebSite","name":"Midpage","url":"https://app.midpage.ai"},"inLanguage":"en","keywords":"legal, opinion, document, research, midpage, In re the Adoption of David A. C., New York Court of Appeals, In re the Adoption of David A. C., 372 N.E.2d 42 (NY 1977)","isAccessibleForFree":true,"isFamilyFriendly":true}34:T422,

*709OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Appeal dismissed, with costs. The purportedly direct and dispositive constitutional issues underlying this appeal are no more than a restatement of questions whose merit has been clearly resolved against appellant’s position (Matter of Malpica-Orsini, 36 NY2d 568, app dsmd sub nom. Orsini v Blasi, 423 US 1042), and must be held to lack the degree of substantiality necessary to sustain this appeal as of right under CPLR 5601 (subd [b], par 1) (Tabankin v Codd, 40 NY2d 893; People ex rel. Uviller v Luger, 38 NY2d 854; see NY Const, art VI, § 3, subd b). Accordingly, it must be dismissed (Cohen and Karger, Powers of the New York Court of Appeals, § 55, p 254).

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur in memorandum.

Appeal dismissed.