In re Edward V.

204 A.D.2d 1060, 614 N.Y.S.2d 348
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 27, 1994
StatusPublished
Cited by42 cases

This text of 204 A.D.2d 1060 (In re Edward V.) 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 Edward V., 204 A.D.2d 1060, 614 N.Y.S.2d 348 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Opinion

—Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: The record supports Family Court’s finding that respondent committed an act that, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of criminal mischief in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 145.00 [1]). The court, as the trier of fact, was entitled to resolve questions of credibility against respondent (see, Matter of Michael D., 109 AD2d 633, affd 66 NY2d 843).

[1061]*1061Family Court properly exercised its discretion in directing respondent’s placement with the New York State Division for Youth. That placement was "the least restrictive available alternative * * * consistent with the needs and best interests of the respondent as well as the need for protection of the community” (Family Ct Act § 352.2 [2] [a]).

The fact-finding order incorrectly recites that respondent admitted his guilt of criminal mischief in the fourth degree. It is clear from the decision, however, that the court found that respondent denied any wrongdoing. Where there is a conflict between an order and a decision, the decision controls (Di Prospero v Ford Motor Co., 105 AD2d 479, 480; Rowlee v Dietrich, 88 AD2d 751, 752). The error may be corrected by a motion to resettle (see, CPLR 2221) or may be cured on appeal (Rowlee v Dietrich, supra, at 752). Thus, we modify the fact-finding order by deleting the fourth paragraph.

There is also a discrepancy between the court’s decision following the dispositional hearing and the order of disposition. In its decision, Family Court determined that the dispositional order should include a provision that, during the 12-month placement, respondent’s need for medication should be assessed (see, Family Ct Act § 233). The dispositional order, however, contains no such provision. We modify the order of disposition, therefore, to direct the Division for Youth to provide for an assessment of respondent’s need for medication. (Appeal from Order of Monroe County Family Court, Kohout, J.—Juvenile Delinquency.) Present—Green, J. P., Lawton, Fallon, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.

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

Related

American Tr. Ins. Co. v. Hackensack Surgery Ctr., LLC
2025 NY Slip Op 05787 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
Matter of Sturnick v. Hobbs
2021 NY Slip Op 00750 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Matter of KC B. Mench v. Majerus
2020 NY Slip Op 06626 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Matter of Aaren F. (Amber S.)
2020 NY Slip Op 1739 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
ESPOSITO, LINDSAY A. v. MAGILL, MATTHEW E.
140 A.D.3d 1772 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
DURYEE, STEPHEN M., PEOPLE v
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015
People v. Duryee
130 A.D.3d 1487 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
DEL NERO, PHILLIP v. COLVIN, MARK
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013
Del Nero v. Colvin
111 A.D.3d 1250 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
O'BRIEN, COLLEEN v. BAINBRIDGE, LARRY J.
89 A.D.3d 1511 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
O'BRIEN & GERE LIMITED v. NEXTGEN CHEMICAL PROCESSES, INC.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011
O'Brien & Gere Ltd. v. NextGen Chemical Processes, Inc.
87 A.D.3d 1277 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Lomanto v. Schneider
78 A.D.3d 1536 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Utica Mutual Insurance v. McAteer & FitzGerald, Inc.
78 A.D.3d 1612 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Parish A. v. Jamie T.
49 A.D.3d 1322 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Innovative Transmission & Engine Co. v. Massaro
37 A.D.3d 1199 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Waul v. State
27 A.D.3d 1114 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Capruso v. Castoire
24 A.D.3d 1217 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Van Orman v. Van Orman
19 A.D.3d 1167 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Mika v. Elthorp
17 A.D.3d 1140 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
204 A.D.2d 1060, 614 N.Y.S.2d 348, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-edward-v-nyappdiv-1994.