In re Chamila J.

51 A.D.3d 925, 856 N.Y.S.2d 880
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 20, 2008
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 51 A.D.3d 925 (In re Chamila J.) 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 Chamila J., 51 A.D.3d 925, 856 N.Y.S.2d 880 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Opinion

In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, Chamila J. appeals (1) from an order of the Family Court, Dutchess County (Forman, J.), dated June 8, 2007, which, after a hearing, granted that branch of the petition which was to extend her placement with the Dutchess County Department of Social Services for a period of up to 12 months, and (2), as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the same court, also dated June 8, 2007, as extended her placement with the Dutchess County Department of Social Services for a period of 12 months.

[926]*926Ordered that the appeal from the first order is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as that order was superseded by the second order; and it is further,

Ordered that the second order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in extending her placement for a period of 12 months (see Family Ct Act § 355.3 [4]; Matter of Yves J.-J., 27 AD3d 465 [2006]; Matter of Ashanti W., 242 AD2d 539 [1997]). The court’s finding that continued placement would protect the community and serve the appellant’s best interests is supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see Matter of Ashanti W., 242 AD2d at 539; Matter of Luis M., 230 AD2d 743 [1996]; Matter of Percy H., 159 AD2d 623 [1990]).

The appellant’s remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, is without merit. Santucci, J.E, Covello, Belen and Chambers, JJ., concur.

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

Related

In re Ryan I.
82 A.D.3d 1524 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
51 A.D.3d 925, 856 N.Y.S.2d 880, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-chamila-j-nyappdiv-2008.