In re Jose B.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Jose B.

47 A.D.2d 765, 365 N.Y.S.2d 259, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9064

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

DecidedMarch 17, 1975

StatusPublished

This text of 47 A.D.2d 765 (In re Jose B.) 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 Jose B., 47 A.D.2d 765, 365 N.Y.S.2d 259, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9064 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to article 7 of the Family Court Act, the appeal is from an order of the Family Court, Queens County, made July 11, 1974, which, based upon two fact-finding determinations of juvenile delinquency, ordered appellant placed with the Division For Youth, Title III (State Training School). Order reversed, on the law, without costs, and case remanded to the Family Court for further dispositional proceedings in accordance herewith. At the dispositional hearing held on July 11, 1974, a probation officer testified that appellant had been referred to and rejected by Lincoln Hall, a private residential treatment center. Additionally, referrals had been made to two other private agencies, which had not responded up to the.time of the hearing. A psychiatric report prepared by the Bureau of Mental Health Services also recommended that appellant be placed in a “ residential treatment center.” The responses of the two private agencies were material and relevant to proper placement and it was an abuse of discretion for the Family Court to proceed in the absence of such responses (cf. Matter of Melvin W., 45 A D 2d 842; Matter of Daniel B., 43 A D 2d 861). Rabin, Acting P. J., Christ and Shapiro, JJ., concur; Hopkins and Latham, JJ., dissent and vote to affirm the order.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to article 7 of the Family Court Act, the appeal is from an order of the Family Court, Queens County, made July 11, 1974, which, based upon two fact-finding determinations of juvenile delinquency, ordered appellant placed with the Division For Youth, Title III (State Training School). Order reversed, on the law, without costs, and case remanded to the Family Court for further dispositional proceedings in accordance herewith. At the dispositional hearing held on July 11, 1974, a probation officer testified that appellant had been referred to and rejected by Lincoln Hall, a private residential treatment center. Additionally, referrals had been made to two other private agencies, which had not responded up to the.time of the hearing. A psychiatric report prepared by the Bureau of Mental Health Services also recommended that appellant be placed in a “ residential treatment center.” The responses of the two private agencies were material and relevant to proper placement and it was an abuse of discretion for the Family Court to proceed in the absence of such responses (cf. Matter of Melvin W., 45 A D 2d 842; Matter of Daniel B., 43 A D 2d 861). Rabin, Acting P. J., Christ and Shapiro, JJ., concur; Hopkins and Latham, JJ., dissent and vote to affirm the order.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

47 A.D.2d 765, 365 N.Y.S.2d 259, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9064, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-jose-b-nyappdiv-1975.