In re Gerard A.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Gerard A.

61 A.D.2d 902, 402 N.Y.S.2d 835, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10485

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

DecidedMarch 9, 1978

StatusPublished

This text of 61 A.D.2d 902 (In re Gerard 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 Gerard A., 61 A.D.2d 902, 402 N.Y.S.2d 835, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10485 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County, entered June 29, 1977, unanimously modified, on the law, to strike therefrom the sixth decretal paragraph, and otherwise affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. The offending paragraph, by which "the New York State Division for Youth is directed not to issue any weekends [sic] or other passes * * * under penalty of contempt for the first full year,” constitutes an unwarranted interference with the administrative authority of the division. (See Matter of Terrance C., 45 AD2d 825.) The court may recommend—not direct—such action, but, even if only a recommendation, it has no place in an order. In any event, the institution to which the delinquent was committed, being a maximum security facility, does not [903]*903issue such passes as a matter of policy. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Silverman, Evans, Fein and Markewich, JJ.

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

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County, entered June 29, 1977, unanimously modified, on the law, to strike therefrom the sixth decretal paragraph, and otherwise affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. The offending paragraph, by which "the New York State Division for Youth is directed not to issue any weekends [sic] or other passes * * * under penalty of contempt for the first full year,” constitutes an unwarranted interference with the administrative authority of the division. (See Matter of Terrance C., 45 AD2d 825.) The court may recommend—not direct—such action, but, even if only a recommendation, it has no place in an order. In any event, the institution to which the delinquent was committed, being a maximum security facility, does not [903]*903issue such passes as a matter of policy. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Silverman, Evans, Fein and Markewich, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 A.D.2d 902, 402 N.Y.S.2d 835, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10485, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-gerard-a-nyappdiv-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack