In re Jose H.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Jose H.

254 A.D.2d 20, 677 N.Y.S.2d 786, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9942

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

DecidedOctober 1, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 254 A.D.2d 20 (In re Jose 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 Jose H., 254 A.D.2d 20, 677 N.Y.S.2d 786, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9942 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Family Court, New York County (Rhoda Cohen, J.), entered January 15, 1997, which dismissed the petition on speedy trial grounds, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the petition reinstated and the matter remanded to Family Court for further proceedings.

The Family Court erred by dismissing the petition, on the ground of the presentment agency’s failure to commence a fact-finding hearing in timely fashion, on the 56th day after respondent’s initial appearance. Since respondent was not [21]*21detained, petitioner had 60 days within which to commence such hearing (Family Ct Act § 340.1 [2]; Matter of Saul H., 234 AD2d 223; Matter of James T., 220 AD2d 352). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Williams, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Order, Family Court, New York County (Rhoda Cohen, J.), entered January 15, 1997, which dismissed the petition on speedy trial grounds, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the petition reinstated and the matter remanded to Family Court for further proceedings.

The Family Court erred by dismissing the petition, on the ground of the presentment agency’s failure to commence a fact-finding hearing in timely fashion, on the 56th day after respondent’s initial appearance. Since respondent was not [21]*21detained, petitioner had 60 days within which to commence such hearing (Family Ct Act § 340.1 [2]; Matter of Saul H., 234 AD2d 223; Matter of James T., 220 AD2d 352). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Williams, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 A.D.2d 20, 677 N.Y.S.2d 786, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9942, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-jose-h-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack