In re Dominique R.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Dominique R.

57 A.D.3d 550, 867 N.Y.2d 702

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 2, 2008·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

The Family Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in revoking the original order of disposition which placed the appellant on probation. The presentment agency adduced “competent proof that the [appellant] without just cause failed to comply with [the] terms and conditions” of her probation (Family Ct Act § 779).

The appellant’s contention with respect to her placement is academic inasmuch as the placement has expired pursuant to its terms (see Matter of Joseph R., 49 AD3d 651 [2008]; Matter of Jeffrey McG., 8 AD3d 571 [2004]; Matter of Angelina S., 304 AD2d 833, 833-834 [2003]). Fisher, J.E, Balkin, McCarthy and Leventhal, JJ., concur.

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

The Family Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in revoking the original order of disposition which placed the appellant on probation. The presentment agency adduced “competent proof that the [appellant] without just cause failed to comply with [the] terms and conditions” of her probation (Family Ct Act § 779).

The appellant’s contention with respect to her placement is academic inasmuch as the placement has expired pursuant to its terms (see Matter of Joseph R., 49 AD3d 651 [2008]; Matter of Jeffrey McG., 8 AD3d 571 [2004]; Matter of Angelina S., 304 AD2d 833, 833-834 [2003]). Fisher, J.E, Balkin, McCarthy and Leventhal, JJ., concur.

In re Dominique R., 57 A.D.3d 550, 867 N.Y.2d 702 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

57 A.D.3d 550 (In re Dominique R.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related