In re Eric A.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Eric A.

38 A.D.3d 448, 831 N.Y.S.2d 322

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

DecidedMarch 27, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 38 A.D.3d 448 (In re Eric A.) 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 Eric A., 38 A.D.3d 448, 831 N.Y.S.2d 322 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Alma Cordova, J.), entered September 15, 2006, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that he committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and placed him with the Office of Children and Family Services for a period of 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The placement was a proper exercise of the court’s discretion that constituted the least restrictive alternative consistent with the needs of appellant and the community (see Matter of Katherine W., 62 NY2d 947 [1984]), particularly in view of his escalating pattern of antisocial behavior and the apparent inability of his mother to control him. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Marlow, McGuire and Kavanagh, JJ.

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

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Alma Cordova, J.), entered September 15, 2006, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that he committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and placed him with the Office of Children and Family Services for a period of 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The placement was a proper exercise of the court’s discretion that constituted the least restrictive alternative consistent with the needs of appellant and the community (see Matter of Katherine W., 62 NY2d 947 [1984]), particularly in view of his escalating pattern of antisocial behavior and the apparent inability of his mother to control him. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Marlow, McGuire and Kavanagh, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 A.D.3d 448, 831 N.Y.S.2d 322, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-eric-a-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack