In re Brittany S.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Brittany S.

298 A.D.2d 997, 748 N.Y.S.2d 308, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9046

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

DecidedOctober 1, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 298 A.D.2d 997 (In re Brittany 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 Brittany S., 298 A.D.2d 997, 748 N.Y.S.2d 308, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9046 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from an order of Family Court, Monroe County (Donofrio, J.), entered December 17, 2001, which adjudged that respondent is a person in need of supervision and placed respondent in the custody of petitioner for placement at Hopevale for a period of up to 12 months.

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

Memorandum: Family Court did not abuse its discretion in placing respondent in the custody of petitioner for placement at a particular residential treatment facility for a period of up to 12 months. The determination that such placement is in respondent’s best interests is fully supported by the record (see Matter of Samantha T., 296 AD2d 869; Matter of Latoya S., 231 AD2d 844; Matter of Tynisah S., 201 AD2d 958; Matter of April FF., 195 AD2d 860, 860-861). Present — Pine, J.P., Hayes, Hurlbutt, Kehoe and Burns, JJ.

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

—Appeal from an order of Family Court, Monroe County (Donofrio, J.), entered December 17, 2001, which adjudged that respondent is a person in need of supervision and placed respondent in the custody of petitioner for placement at Hopevale for a period of up to 12 months.

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

Memorandum: Family Court did not abuse its discretion in placing respondent in the custody of petitioner for placement at a particular residential treatment facility for a period of up to 12 months. The determination that such placement is in respondent’s best interests is fully supported by the record (see Matter of Samantha T., 296 AD2d 869; Matter of Latoya S., 231 AD2d 844; Matter of Tynisah S., 201 AD2d 958; Matter of April FF., 195 AD2d 860, 860-861). Present — Pine, J.P., Hayes, Hurlbutt, Kehoe and Burns, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

298 A.D.2d 997, 748 N.Y.S.2d 308, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9046, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-brittany-s-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack