In re Joseph B.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Joseph B.

49 A.D.3d 1309, 852 N.Y.2d 871

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

DecidedMarch 14, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 49 A.D.3d 1309 (In re Joseph 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 Joseph B., 49 A.D.3d 1309, 852 N.Y.2d 871 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum: Family Court did not abuse its broad discretion in this juvenile delinquency proceeding by placing respondent in a limited secure facility, “the least restrictive available alternative . . . which is consistent with the needs and best interests of the respondent and the need for protection of the community” (Family Ct Act § 352.2 [2] [a]; see Matter of Brendon H., 43 AD3d 1283 [2007]). The record of the dispositional hearing establishes that respondent is in need of drug treatment, psychological counseling, special educational services and a structured environment, and the court properly determined that those needs can be addressed most effectively in a limited secure facility (see Matter of Vidal W., 267 AD2d 1104 [1999]; Matter of Willie J.H., 258 AD2d 938 [1999]). Present— Hurlbutt, J.P., Martoche, Lunn, Green and Gorski, JJ.

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

Memorandum: Family Court did not abuse its broad discretion in this juvenile delinquency proceeding by placing respondent in a limited secure facility, “the least restrictive available alternative . . . which is consistent with the needs and best interests of the respondent and the need for protection of the community” (Family Ct Act § 352.2 [2] [a]; see Matter of Brendon H., 43 AD3d 1283 [2007]). The record of the dispositional hearing establishes that respondent is in need of drug treatment, psychological counseling, special educational services and a structured environment, and the court properly determined that those needs can be addressed most effectively in a limited secure facility (see Matter of Vidal W., 267 AD2d 1104 [1999]; Matter of Willie J.H., 258 AD2d 938 [1999]). Present— Hurlbutt, J.P., Martoche, Lunn, Green and Gorski, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 A.D.3d 1309, 852 N.Y.2d 871, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-joseph-b-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack