In re Anthony A.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Anthony A.

255 A.D.2d 246, 680 N.Y.S.2d 249, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12684

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

DecidedNovember 24, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 255 A.D.2d 246 (In re Anthony A.) 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 Anthony A., 255 A.D.2d 246, 680 N.Y.S.2d 249, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12684 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Terrence McElrath, J.), entered on or about April 4, 1997, which determined that appellant had violated the terms of his probation and placed him in the custody of the Division for Youth, limited secure, for a period of 18 months, 6 months minimum, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s determination that appellant violated a condition of his probation by failing to alert his probation officer im[247]*247mediately of a change of address and school was proven by a preponderance of the evidence (Matter of Alpheaus M., 168 AD2d 208). The court properly exercised its discretion in limiting cross-examination regarding the probation officer’s efforts or lack of efforts to keep in touch with appellant since this testimony was not material to the issue of whether appellant violated conditions of his probation. Concur — Lerner, P. J., Williams, Tom and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Terrence McElrath, J.), entered on or about April 4, 1997, which determined that appellant had violated the terms of his probation and placed him in the custody of the Division for Youth, limited secure, for a period of 18 months, 6 months minimum, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s determination that appellant violated a condition of his probation by failing to alert his probation officer im[247]*247mediately of a change of address and school was proven by a preponderance of the evidence (Matter of Alpheaus M., 168 AD2d 208). The court properly exercised its discretion in limiting cross-examination regarding the probation officer’s efforts or lack of efforts to keep in touch with appellant since this testimony was not material to the issue of whether appellant violated conditions of his probation. Concur — Lerner, P. J., Williams, Tom and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 A.D.2d 246, 680 N.Y.S.2d 249, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12684, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-anthony-a-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack