In re Ashley R.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Ashley R.

42 A.D.3d 689, 838 N.Y.S.2d 450

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

DecidedJuly 12, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 42 A.D.3d 689 (In re Ashley R.) 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 Ashley R., 42 A.D.3d 689, 838 N.Y.S.2d 450 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Rose, J.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Franklin County (Main, Jr., J.), entered July 7, 2006, which granted petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act article 7, to adjudicate respondent a person in need of supervision.

At a fact-finding hearing in this proceeding to adjudicate her a person in need of supervision, respondent admitted to a number of the allegations against her. Family Court then advised her of her right to remain silent and determined her to be a person in need of supervision. At a later dispositional hearing, Family Court directed her to be placed in the custody of the Franklin County Department of Social Services.

Although the admissions elicited by Family Court furnished a sufficient factual basis for the finding that respondent was a person in need of supervision (see Matter of Sharon D., 274 AD2d 702, 702-703 [2000]; cf. Matter of Steven Z., 19 AD3d 783, 784 [2005]), the court erred by failing to advise her of her right to remain silent at the fact-finding hearing before she made her admissions (see Family Ct Act § 741 [a]; Matter of Nichole A., 300 AD2d 947, 948 [2002]; Matter of Jodi VV., 295 AD2d 659, 660 [2002]). As a result, respondent’s adjudication and order of disposition must be reversed.

Mercure, J.E, Peters, Spain and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs, and matter remitted to the Family Court of Franklin County for further proceedings not inconsistent with this Court’s decision.

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

Rose, J.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Franklin County (Main, Jr., J.), entered July 7, 2006, which granted petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act article 7, to adjudicate respondent a person in need of supervision.

At a fact-finding hearing in this proceeding to adjudicate her a person in need of supervision, respondent admitted to a number of the allegations against her. Family Court then advised her of her right to remain silent and determined her to be a person in need of supervision. At a later dispositional hearing, Family Court directed her to be placed in the custody of the Franklin County Department of Social Services.

Although the admissions elicited by Family Court furnished a sufficient factual basis for the finding that respondent was a person in need of supervision (see Matter of Sharon D., 274 AD2d 702, 702-703 [2000]; cf. Matter of Steven Z., 19 AD3d 783, 784 [2005]), the court erred by failing to advise her of her right to remain silent at the fact-finding hearing before she made her admissions (see Family Ct Act § 741 [a]; Matter of Nichole A., 300 AD2d 947, 948 [2002]; Matter of Jodi VV., 295 AD2d 659, 660 [2002]). As a result, respondent’s adjudication and order of disposition must be reversed.

Mercure, J.E, Peters, Spain and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs, and matter remitted to the Family Court of Franklin County for further proceedings not inconsistent with this Court’s decision.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

42 A.D.3d 689, 838 N.Y.S.2d 450, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-ashley-r-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack