In re Daniel B.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Daniel B.

43 A.D.2d 861, 351 N.Y.S.2d 444, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5869

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

DecidedJanuary 28, 1974

StatusPublished

This text of 43 A.D.2d 861 (In re Daniel B.) 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 Daniel B., 43 A.D.2d 861, 351 N.Y.S.2d 444, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5869 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from, so much of an order of the Family Court, Kings County, entered October 18, 1972, as, after adjudging appellant as being a juvenile delinquent, ordered him placed with the Division for Youth (New York State Training School) for a period of 18 months. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, without costs, and proceeding remitted to the Family Court for further dispositional, proceedings. In our opinion, it was an abuse of discretion to commit this infant to the State Training School, in view of the fact that the probation officer admitted that, after appellant’s rejection by Lincoln Hall because of his asthmatic condition, no other private agency referrals were made (see Matter of Edward 8., 37 A D 2d 977). Gulotta, P. J., Martuseello, Latham, Benjamin and Munder, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from, so much of an order of the Family Court, Kings County, entered October 18, 1972, as, after adjudging appellant as being a juvenile delinquent, ordered him placed with the Division for Youth (New York State Training School) for a period of 18 months. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, without costs, and proceeding remitted to the Family Court for further dispositional, proceedings. In our opinion, it was an abuse of discretion to commit this infant to the State Training School, in view of the fact that the probation officer admitted that, after appellant’s rejection by Lincoln Hall because of his asthmatic condition, no other private agency referrals were made (see Matter of Edward 8., 37 A D 2d 977). Gulotta, P. J., Martuseello, Latham, Benjamin and Munder, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

43 A.D.2d 861, 351 N.Y.S.2d 444, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5869, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-daniel-b-nyappdiv-1974.