Fasolo v. Probation Department

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fasolo v. Probation Department

19 A.D.2d 775, 241 N.Y.S.2d 873, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3431

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJuly 1, 1963

StatusPublished

This text of 19 A.D.2d 775 (Fasolo v. Probation Department) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fasolo v. Probation Department, 19 A.D.2d 775, 241 N.Y.S.2d 873, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3431 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Although there were many procedural irregularities, we do not find that any substantial right of the infant was violated and the order should be affirmed. The Family Court Judge assumed to appoint a law guardian to represent both the infant and his parents. This he had no right to do but the law guardian called attention.to the invalidity of his assignment as to the parents and he actually represented only the infant. The law guardian admitted in open court that his client had violated his probation. The result at which the Family Court arrived was proper. (Appeal from order of Oneida [776]*776Family Court revoking an order of probation and placing the child in custody of Commissioner of Public Welfare for not to'exceed 18 months.) Present* — - Williams, P. J., Goldman, Halpem, McClusky and Henry, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Although there were many procedural irregularities, we do not find that any substantial right of the infant was violated and the order should be affirmed. The Family Court Judge assumed to appoint a law guardian to represent both the infant and his parents. This he had no right to do but the law guardian called attention.to the invalidity of his assignment as to the parents and he actually represented only the infant. The law guardian admitted in open court that his client had violated his probation. The result at which the Family Court arrived was proper. (Appeal from order of Oneida [776]*776Family Court revoking an order of probation and placing the child in custody of Commissioner of Public Welfare for not to'exceed 18 months.) Present* — - Williams, P. J., Goldman, Halpem, McClusky and Henry, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.D.2d 775, 241 N.Y.S.2d 873, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3431, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fasolo-v-probation-department-nyappdiv-1963.