In re Brandon S.

305 A.D.2d 609, 759 N.Y.S.2d 370
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 19, 2003
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 305 A.D.2d 609 (In re Brandon S.) 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 S., 305 A.D.2d 609, 759 N.Y.S.2d 370 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Opinion

—In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, the appeal is from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Dutchess County (Brands, J.), entered February 14, 2002, which, upon a fact-finding determination, dated January 3, 2002, that upon the admission of Brandon S. that he violated the conditions of a term of probation imposed by an order of disposition of the same court dated January 30, 2001, adjudicating him to be a person in need of supervision, vacated the term of probation and committed the appellant to the care and custody of the Dutchess County Commissioner of Social Services for a period of one year.

Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order of disposition as committed the appellant to the care and custody of the Dutchess County Commissioner of Social Services for a period of one year is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,

Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.

[610]*610The appeal from so much of the order of disposition as committed the appellant to the care and custody of the Dutchess County Commissioner of Social Services for one year must be dismissed as academic because the placement period has expired (see Matter of Neftaly R., 283 AD2d 579, 580 [2001]).

The appellant has not preserved for appellate review his claim that his allocution was defective since he did not move to withdraw his admission on the grounds now asserted (see Family Ct Act § 321.4; CPL 220.60; People v Crowell, 273 AD2d 321 [2000]; People v McCoy, 270 AD2d 432 [2000]; cf. Matter of Anthony S., 302 AD2d 531 [2003]). We decline to review the appellant’s contention in the interest of justice. Feuerstein, J.P., McGinity, H. Miller and Adams, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Matter of Sara BB.
139 A.D.3d 1279 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
In re David H.
88 A.D.3d 710 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
In re Alex Z.
82 A.D.3d 995 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
In re Jahmanni A.
76 A.D.2d 1012 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
In re Nathaniel P.
58 A.D.3d 860 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
In re Joseph R.
49 A.D.3d 651 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
In re Nicholas R.
36 A.D.3d 923 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
In re Sean R.P.
24 A.D.3d 1200 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
In re Briana J.
24 A.D.3d 1274 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
In re Ricky A.
11 A.D.3d 532 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
In re Mary Veronica R. Suffolk County Department of Social Services
10 A.D.3d 400 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
In re Jeffrey McG.
8 A.D.3d 571 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
In re Joseph G.
196 Misc. 2d 904 (NYC Family Court, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
305 A.D.2d 609, 759 N.Y.S.2d 370, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-brandon-s-nyappdiv-2003.