In re Denise M. W.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Denise M. W.

122 A.D.2d 556, 505 N.Y.S.2d 18, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 59828

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

DecidedJuly 11, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 122 A.D.2d 556 (In re Denise M. 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 Denise M. W., 122 A.D.2d 556, 505 N.Y.S.2d 18, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 59828 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and petition dismissed. Memorandum: Family Court erred in entering an order adjourning this proceeding in contemplation of dismissal (see, Family Ct Act § 749). The Law Guardian’s motion to dismiss the petition made at the close of the fact-finding hearing should have been granted. The allegations of the petition failed to allege, and the evidence at the hearing failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt as required by Family Court Act § 744, that the juvenile was "a person in need of supervision” within the meaning of Family Court Act § 712 (a). It is well settled that there must be more than an isolated incident to support a determination that a juvenile is "in need [557]*557of supervision” (Matter of Raymond O., 31 NY2d 730; Matter of David W., 28 NY2d 589). Additionally, we note that because there may be collateral legal consequences resulting from the order appealed from, the appeal is not moot (see, Matter of Erik P., 42 AD2d 908). (Appeal from order of Erie County Family Court, Graney, J. — PINS.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Boomer, Balio and Lawton, JJ.

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

— Order unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and petition dismissed. Memorandum: Family Court erred in entering an order adjourning this proceeding in contemplation of dismissal (see, Family Ct Act § 749). The Law Guardian’s motion to dismiss the petition made at the close of the fact-finding hearing should have been granted. The allegations of the petition failed to allege, and the evidence at the hearing failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt as required by Family Court Act § 744, that the juvenile was "a person in need of supervision” within the meaning of Family Court Act § 712 (a). It is well settled that there must be more than an isolated incident to support a determination that a juvenile is "in need [557]*557of supervision” (Matter of Raymond O., 31 NY2d 730; Matter of David W., 28 NY2d 589). Additionally, we note that because there may be collateral legal consequences resulting from the order appealed from, the appeal is not moot (see, Matter of Erik P., 42 AD2d 908). (Appeal from order of Erie County Family Court, Graney, J. — PINS.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Boomer, Balio and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

122 A.D.2d 556, 505 N.Y.S.2d 18, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 59828, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-denise-m-w-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack