In re Cynthia H.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Cynthia H.

105 A.D.2d 1149, 482 N.Y.S.2d 394, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21277

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

DecidedNovember 7, 1984

StatusPublished

This text of 105 A.D.2d 1149 (In re Cynthia H.) 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 Cynthia H., 105 A.D.2d 1149, 482 N.Y.S.2d 394, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21277 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously reversed, without costs, and petition dismissed. Memorandum: Family Court committed reversible error in this proceeding pursuant to article 7 of the Family Court Act when it played the role of the County Attorney, who was absent, and called and examined witnesses against the respondent at the fact-finding hearing (cf. People v Yut Wai Tom, 53 NY2d 44, 56-58). Moreover, the evidence adduced at that hearing is insufficient as a matter of law to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that respondent is a person in need of supervision within the meaning of subdivision (a) of section 712 and subdivision (b) of section 744 of the Family Court Act (see Matter of Rebecca G., 93 AD2d 1000; Matter of David N., 92 AD2d 739). (Appeal from order of Erie County Family Court, Killeen, J. — person in need of supervision.) Present — Hancock, Jr., J. P., Callahan, Denman, Boomer and Moule, JJ.

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

Order unanimously reversed, without costs, and petition dismissed. Memorandum: Family Court committed reversible error in this proceeding pursuant to article 7 of the Family Court Act when it played the role of the County Attorney, who was absent, and called and examined witnesses against the respondent at the fact-finding hearing (cf. People v Yut Wai Tom, 53 NY2d 44, 56-58). Moreover, the evidence adduced at that hearing is insufficient as a matter of law to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that respondent is a person in need of supervision within the meaning of subdivision (a) of section 712 and subdivision (b) of section 744 of the Family Court Act (see Matter of Rebecca G., 93 AD2d 1000; Matter of David N., 92 AD2d 739). (Appeal from order of Erie County Family Court, Killeen, J. — person in need of supervision.) Present — Hancock, Jr., J. P., Callahan, Denman, Boomer and Moule, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

105 A.D.2d 1149, 482 N.Y.S.2d 394, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21277, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-cynthia-h-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack