In re Brandon K.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Brandon K.

2 A.D.3d 1339, 768 N.Y.S.2d 914, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14324

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

DecidedDecember 31, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 2 A.D.3d 1339 (In re Brandon K.) 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 Brandon K., 2 A.D.3d 1339, 768 N.Y.S.2d 914, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14324 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal from an order of Family Court, Erie County (Rosa, J.), entered January 17, 2002, which directed respondent to submit to a psychological evaluation.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Family Court properly exercised its broad authority in directing respondent to submit to a psychological evaluation (see Family Ct Act § 251 [a]; Matter of Henrietta D. v Jack K., 272 AD2d 995 [2000]). Contrary to respondent’s contentions, the court’s directive effectuated rather than altered the dispositional order, and the order was not made in violation of respondent’s right to counsel (cf. Matter of Patricia L. v Steven L., 119 AD2d 221, 224-225 [1986]). Present—Green, J.P., Scudder, Gorski, Lawton and Hayes, JJ.

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

— Appeal from an order of Family Court, Erie County (Rosa, J.), entered January 17, 2002, which directed respondent to submit to a psychological evaluation.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Family Court properly exercised its broad authority in directing respondent to submit to a psychological evaluation (see Family Ct Act § 251 [a]; Matter of Henrietta D. v Jack K., 272 AD2d 995 [2000]). Contrary to respondent’s contentions, the court’s directive effectuated rather than altered the dispositional order, and the order was not made in violation of respondent’s right to counsel (cf. Matter of Patricia L. v Steven L., 119 AD2d 221, 224-225 [1986]). Present—Green, J.P., Scudder, Gorski, Lawton and Hayes, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 A.D.3d 1339, 768 N.Y.S.2d 914, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14324, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-brandon-k-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack