In re Francis H.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Francis H.

253 A.D.2d 691, 677 N.Y.S.2d 474, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9669

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

DecidedSeptember 24, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 253 A.D.2d 691 (In re Francis 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 Francis H., 253 A.D.2d 691, 677 N.Y.S.2d 474, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9669 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Stewart Weinstein, J.), entered on or about February 5, 1998, which granted the petition of the New York State Office of Children and Family Services to extend appellant’s placement with that agency and extended his placement for a period of 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS) demonstrated good cause for late filing of the petition for extension of placement (Family Ct Act § 355.3 [2]), given that the reason for the delay was OCFS’ decision to await final determination of appellant’s new criminal proceeding, which was expected to terminate with an incarcerative sentence (removing jurisdiction from the presenting agency) but in fact resulted in a probationary sentence. Concur — Lerner, P. J., Milonas, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

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

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Stewart Weinstein, J.), entered on or about February 5, 1998, which granted the petition of the New York State Office of Children and Family Services to extend appellant’s placement with that agency and extended his placement for a period of 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS) demonstrated good cause for late filing of the petition for extension of placement (Family Ct Act § 355.3 [2]), given that the reason for the delay was OCFS’ decision to await final determination of appellant’s new criminal proceeding, which was expected to terminate with an incarcerative sentence (removing jurisdiction from the presenting agency) but in fact resulted in a probationary sentence. Concur — Lerner, P. J., Milonas, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

253 A.D.2d 691, 677 N.Y.S.2d 474, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9669, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-francis-h-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack