In re David W.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re David W.

309 A.D.2d 758, 768 N.Y.S.2d 827

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

DecidedOctober 6, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 309 A.D.2d 758 (In re David W.) 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 David W., 309 A.D.2d 758, 768 N.Y.S.2d 827 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 7, the appeal is from an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Westchester County (Klein, J.), entered August 27, 2002, which, upon the partial admission of David W., adjudged him to be a person in need of supervision and directed that he be placed under the supervision of the Westchester County Department of Probation for a period of one year.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Under the particular circumstances of this case, the Family Court properly assigned counsel to the petitioner, the appellant’s mother (see Family Ct Act §§ 261, 262). Contrary to the appellant’s contention, there is no evidence in the record to support the claim that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel as a result of the amount of compensation paid to the Law Guardian (see Matter of Joseph S., 298 AD2d 588, 589 [2002]; Matter of Donald P., 285 AD2d 510, 511 [2001]).

[759]*759The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J.P., Krausman, Schmidt and Rivera, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 7, the appeal is from an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Westchester County (Klein, J.), entered August 27, 2002, which, upon the partial admission of David W., adjudged him to be a person in need of supervision and directed that he be placed under the supervision of the Westchester County Department of Probation for a period of one year.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Under the particular circumstances of this case, the Family Court properly assigned counsel to the petitioner, the appellant’s mother (see Family Ct Act §§ 261, 262). Contrary to the appellant’s contention, there is no evidence in the record to support the claim that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel as a result of the amount of compensation paid to the Law Guardian (see Matter of Joseph S., 298 AD2d 588, 589 [2002]; Matter of Donald P., 285 AD2d 510, 511 [2001]).

[759]*759The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J.P., Krausman, Schmidt and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

309 A.D.2d 758, 768 N.Y.S.2d 827, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-david-w-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack