In re Andrew D.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Andrew D.

231 A.D.2d 953, 648 N.Y.S.2d 379, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10935

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

DecidedSeptember 27, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 231 A.D.2d 953 (In re Andrew D.) 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

In re Andrew D., 231 A.D.2d 953, 648 N.Y.S.2d 379, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10935 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Family Court did not abuse its discretion by denying as untimely respondent’s motion for post fact-finding disclosure on the day the hearing to determine damages suffered by the victim was scheduled to begin. The court did not err in ordering respondent to pay as restitution one seventh of the victim’s damages of $4,000. The amount of restitution ordered is supported by sufficient evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence and, according great weight to the court’s determination, as we must (see, Matter of James A., 205 AD2d 621), we decline to disturb it. (Appeal from Order of Onondaga County Family Court, Rossi, J.—Juvenile Delinquency.) Present—Pine, J. P., Fallon, Wesley, Davis and Boehm, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Family Court did not abuse its discretion by denying as untimely respondent’s motion for post fact-finding disclosure on the day the hearing to determine damages suffered by the victim was scheduled to begin. The court did not err in ordering respondent to pay as restitution one seventh of the victim’s damages of $4,000. The amount of restitution ordered is supported by sufficient evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence and, according great weight to the court’s determination, as we must (see, Matter of James A., 205 AD2d 621), we decline to disturb it. (Appeal from Order of Onondaga County Family Court, Rossi, J.—Juvenile Delinquency.) Present—Pine, J. P., Fallon, Wesley, Davis and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

231 A.D.2d 953, 648 N.Y.S.2d 379, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10935, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-andrew-d-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack