In re Ian C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Ian C.

254 A.D.2d 132, 679 N.Y.S.2d 296, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11026

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

DecidedOctober 20, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 254 A.D.2d 132 (In re Ian C.) 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 Ian C., 254 A.D.2d 132, 679 N.Y.S.2d 296, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11026 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from an order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Ruth Zuckerman, J.), entered on or about May 23,1997, which, to the extent appealed from, placed appellant with the New York State Division for Youth, limited secure, for up to 18 months, unanimously dismissed, without costs.

The record reflects that appellant consented to the placement set forth in the dispositional order. Since no appeal lies from an order entered on consent (Matter of Michael CC., 216 AD2d 740), this appeal is dismissed. Were we to address the merits, we would find that the court properly exercised its discretion in placing appellant in a limited secure setting, based upon the Probation Department reports, evaluations submitted by examining psychologists, and appellant’s history of difficulties in various schools previously attended (Matter of Jason L., 246 AD2d 444). Concur — Lerner, P. J., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.

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

—Appeal from an order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Ruth Zuckerman, J.), entered on or about May 23,1997, which, to the extent appealed from, placed appellant with the New York State Division for Youth, limited secure, for up to 18 months, unanimously dismissed, without costs.

The record reflects that appellant consented to the placement set forth in the dispositional order. Since no appeal lies from an order entered on consent (Matter of Michael CC., 216 AD2d 740), this appeal is dismissed. Were we to address the merits, we would find that the court properly exercised its discretion in placing appellant in a limited secure setting, based upon the Probation Department reports, evaluations submitted by examining psychologists, and appellant’s history of difficulties in various schools previously attended (Matter of Jason L., 246 AD2d 444). Concur — Lerner, P. J., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 A.D.2d 132, 679 N.Y.S.2d 296, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11026, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-ian-c-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack