In re Courtney G.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Courtney G.

29 A.D.3d 460, 815 N.Y.S.2d 92

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

DecidedMay 25, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 29 A.D.3d 460 (In re Courtney G.) 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 Courtney G., 29 A.D.3d 460, 815 N.Y.S.2d 92 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Alma Cordova, J.), entered on or about August 25, 2005, which, upon appellant’s admission that he had violated the terms of his probation, revoked his probation and placed him with the Office of Children and Family Services for a period of up to 18 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly placed appellant with the Office of Children and Family Services following his admitted violation of probation. This constituted the least restrictive alternative consistent with the needs of appellant and the community, and it was a proper exercise of discretion (see Matter of Katherine W., 62 NY2d 947, 948 [1984]). The court properly considered and rejected the written recommendation of appellant’s therapist, which involved paroling appellant to his mother and grandmother, and the circumstances did not warrant a hearing (see Matter of Vincent B., 239 AD2d 925 [1997]). The underlying incident was a serious sex offense committed against a young child, and the record firmly establishes that appellant’s mother and grandmother were unable to provide appellant with proper supervision. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Andrias, Marlow, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.

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

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Alma Cordova, J.), entered on or about August 25, 2005, which, upon appellant’s admission that he had violated the terms of his probation, revoked his probation and placed him with the Office of Children and Family Services for a period of up to 18 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly placed appellant with the Office of Children and Family Services following his admitted violation of probation. This constituted the least restrictive alternative consistent with the needs of appellant and the community, and it was a proper exercise of discretion (see Matter of Katherine W., 62 NY2d 947, 948 [1984]). The court properly considered and rejected the written recommendation of appellant’s therapist, which involved paroling appellant to his mother and grandmother, and the circumstances did not warrant a hearing (see Matter of Vincent B., 239 AD2d 925 [1997]). The underlying incident was a serious sex offense committed against a young child, and the record firmly establishes that appellant’s mother and grandmother were unable to provide appellant with proper supervision. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Andrias, Marlow, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 A.D.3d 460, 815 N.Y.S.2d 92, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-courtney-g-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack