In re Andy L.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Andy L.

238 A.D.2d 593, 657 N.Y.S.2d 945, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4341

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

DecidedApril 28, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 238 A.D.2d 593 (In re Andy L.) 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 Andy L., 238 A.D.2d 593, 657 N.Y.S.2d 945, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4341 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, John F. Gangemi appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Freeman, J.), dated January 5, 1995, which imposed a sanction upon him of $50 to be paid to the Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection. The notice of appeal filed by the nonparty appellant from the order dated January 5, 1995, is deemed an application for leave to appeal from the order, and leave to appeal is granted.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Family Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in imposing a sanction upon counsel for the respondent for his failure to appear at a scheduled dispositional hearing (see, 22 NYCRR subpart 130-2). Rosenblatt, J. P., Copertino, Pizzuto, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

—In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, John F. Gangemi appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Freeman, J.), dated January 5, 1995, which imposed a sanction upon him of $50 to be paid to the Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection. The notice of appeal filed by the nonparty appellant from the order dated January 5, 1995, is deemed an application for leave to appeal from the order, and leave to appeal is granted.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Family Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in imposing a sanction upon counsel for the respondent for his failure to appear at a scheduled dispositional hearing (see, 22 NYCRR subpart 130-2). Rosenblatt, J. P., Copertino, Pizzuto, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

238 A.D.2d 593, 657 N.Y.S.2d 945, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4341, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-andy-l-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack