In re Diallo H.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Diallo H.

94 A.D.2d 976, 464 N.Y.S.2d 102, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18478

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

DecidedMay 25, 1983

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 94 A.D.2d 976 (In re Diallo 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 Diallo H., 94 A.D.2d 976, 464 N.Y.S.2d 102, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18478 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order unanimously reversed, without costs, and petition dismissed. Memorandum: There is insufficient evidence to sustain the adjudication that respondent is a person in need of supervision (Matter of David N., 92 AD2d 739; Matter of Freeman B., 93 AD2d 997). Neither petitioner (respondent’s foster mother) nor the respondent testified. The only evidence concerning respondent’s conduct was a partial admission from the Law Guardian that respondent has been guilty of curfew violations. This “admission” from one who has no personal knowledge of the facts cannot serve as legally competent evidence sufficient to prove the acts complained of beyond a reasonable doubt [977]*977(see Family Ct Act, § 744, subds [a], [b]). (Appeal from order of Erie County Family Court, Sedita, J. — person in need of supervision.) Present — Hancock, Jr., J. P., Doerr, Denman, Green 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: There is insufficient evidence to sustain the adjudication that respondent is a person in need of supervision (Matter of David N., 92 AD2d 739; Matter of Freeman B., 93 AD2d 997). Neither petitioner (respondent’s foster mother) nor the respondent testified. The only evidence concerning respondent’s conduct was a partial admission from the Law Guardian that respondent has been guilty of curfew violations. This “admission” from one who has no personal knowledge of the facts cannot serve as legally competent evidence sufficient to prove the acts complained of beyond a reasonable doubt [977]*977(see Family Ct Act, § 744, subds [a], [b]). (Appeal from order of Erie County Family Court, Sedita, J. — person in need of supervision.) Present — Hancock, Jr., J. P., Doerr, Denman, Green and Moule, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

94 A.D.2d 976, 464 N.Y.S.2d 102, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18478, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-diallo-h-nyappdiv-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack