In re Edgar T.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Edgar T.

65 A.D.2d 593, 409 N.Y.S.2d 261, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13262

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

DecidedOctober 16, 1978

StatusPublished

This text of 65 A.D.2d 593 (In re Edgar T.) 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 Edgar T., 65 A.D.2d 593, 409 N.Y.S.2d 261, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13262 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to article 7 of the Family Court Act, the appeal is from an order of the Family Court, Kings County, dated March 20, 1978, which, upon a fact-finding adjudication that appellant is a juvenile delinquent, placed him with the Division for Youth, Title III. Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The appellant was found guilty of an act which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of robbery in the first degree. At the dispositional hearing, the psychiatrist who examined the appellant recommended nonrestrictive residential placement and suggested a Title II facility. In our opinion, the hearing court properly exercised its discretion in making a Title III placement since it specified that the placement was to be "in a nonrestrictive surrounding”. Martuscello, J. P., Titone, Rabin and Hawkins, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to article 7 of the Family Court Act, the appeal is from an order of the Family Court, Kings County, dated March 20, 1978, which, upon a fact-finding adjudication that appellant is a juvenile delinquent, placed him with the Division for Youth, Title III. Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The appellant was found guilty of an act which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of robbery in the first degree. At the dispositional hearing, the psychiatrist who examined the appellant recommended nonrestrictive residential placement and suggested a Title II facility. In our opinion, the hearing court properly exercised its discretion in making a Title III placement since it specified that the placement was to be "in a nonrestrictive surrounding”. Martuscello, J. P., Titone, Rabin and Hawkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

65 A.D.2d 593, 409 N.Y.S.2d 261, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13262, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-edgar-t-nyappdiv-1978.