In re Francisco R.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Francisco R.

56 A.D.2d 847, 391 N.Y.S.2d 1015, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11187

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

DecidedMarch 7, 1977

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 56 A.D.2d 847 (In re Francisco R.) 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 Francisco R., 56 A.D.2d 847, 391 N.Y.S.2d 1015, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11187 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

In a juvenile delinquency proceeding, the appeal is from an order of the Family Court, Kings County, dated January 19, 1977, which, after a fact-finding determination that appellant had committed acts which, if done by an adult, would constitute a crime, placed him with the Division for Youth. Order reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and proceeding remitted to the Family Court for a new dispositional hearing. Subdivision (a) of section 756 of the Family Court Act, as amended (L 1976, ch 514, § 2), was not designed to eliminate the Family Court’s control over the ultimate placement of a juvenile with a particular agency or class of agencies, as made clear by the legislative history of the 1976 amendment. The Corporation Counsel, with commendable candor, has so conceded. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Latham, Damiani and Hawkins, JJ., concur.

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

In a juvenile delinquency proceeding, the appeal is from an order of the Family Court, Kings County, dated January 19, 1977, which, after a fact-finding determination that appellant had committed acts which, if done by an adult, would constitute a crime, placed him with the Division for Youth. Order reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and proceeding remitted to the Family Court for a new dispositional hearing. Subdivision (a) of section 756 of the Family Court Act, as amended (L 1976, ch 514, § 2), was not designed to eliminate the Family Court’s control over the ultimate placement of a juvenile with a particular agency or class of agencies, as made clear by the legislative history of the 1976 amendment. The Corporation Counsel, with commendable candor, has so conceded. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Latham, Damiani and Hawkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 A.D.2d 847, 391 N.Y.S.2d 1015, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11187, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-francisco-r-nyappdiv-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack