In re Carlos S.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Carlos S.

283 A.D.2d 244, 724 N.Y.S.2d 603, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5085

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

DecidedMay 15, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 283 A.D.2d 244 (In re Carlos 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 Carlos S., 283 A.D.2d 244, 724 N.Y.S.2d 603, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5085 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Family Court, New York County (Sheldon Rand, J.), entered on or about April 24, 2000, which denied appellant’s motion to hold respondent New York State Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS) in civil contempt of court for disobeying the terms of a dispositional order dated November 12, 1999, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The dispositional order directed that appellant be placed in the custody of respondent OCFS, with initial placement to be with Pius XII, a non-secure facility. Inasmuch as appellant was placed with Pius XII, his subsequent transfer to a limited secure facility, due to the imminent revocation of Pius XII’s license, did not violate the order (Family Ct Act § 353.3 [4]). Moreover, inasmuch as the limited secure facility chosen by OCFS is located relatively close to appellant’s home and affords him an opportunity, pending good behavior, to be placed on community supervision sooner than in other OCFS facilities, appellant has not been prejudiced by the transfer. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Williams, Ellerin, Lerner and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Order, Family Court, New York County (Sheldon Rand, J.), entered on or about April 24, 2000, which denied appellant’s motion to hold respondent New York State Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS) in civil contempt of court for disobeying the terms of a dispositional order dated November 12, 1999, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The dispositional order directed that appellant be placed in the custody of respondent OCFS, with initial placement to be with Pius XII, a non-secure facility. Inasmuch as appellant was placed with Pius XII, his subsequent transfer to a limited secure facility, due to the imminent revocation of Pius XII’s license, did not violate the order (Family Ct Act § 353.3 [4]). Moreover, inasmuch as the limited secure facility chosen by OCFS is located relatively close to appellant’s home and affords him an opportunity, pending good behavior, to be placed on community supervision sooner than in other OCFS facilities, appellant has not been prejudiced by the transfer. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Williams, Ellerin, Lerner and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

283 A.D.2d 244, 724 N.Y.S.2d 603, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5085, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-carlos-s-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack