In re Joseph SS.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Joseph SS.

168 A.D.2d 754, 563 N.Y.S.2d 690, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15250

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

DecidedDecember 13, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 168 A.D.2d 754 (In re Joseph SS.) 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 SS., 168 A.D.2d 754, 563 N.Y.S.2d 690, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15250 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Otsego County (Mogavero, Jr., J.), entered March 23, 1990, which granted petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, to adjudicate respondent a juvenile delinquent.

Upon a review of the record, the order of disposition placing respondent with Berkshire Farm Center and Services for Youth is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. It appears that a less restrictive placement would be more appropriate and we therefore remit this matter to Family Coúrt for a new dispositional hearing (see, Matter of Cecil L., 71 AD2d 917, lv dismissed 48 NY2d 755).

Order reversed, on the law, without costs, and matter remitted to the Family Court of Otsego County for further proceedings not inconsistent with this court’s decision. Mahoney, P. J., Weiss, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Levine, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Otsego County (Mogavero, Jr., J.), entered March 23, 1990, which granted petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, to adjudicate respondent a juvenile delinquent.

Upon a review of the record, the order of disposition placing respondent with Berkshire Farm Center and Services for Youth is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. It appears that a less restrictive placement would be more appropriate and we therefore remit this matter to Family Coúrt for a new dispositional hearing (see, Matter of Cecil L., 71 AD2d 917, lv dismissed 48 NY2d 755).

Order reversed, on the law, without costs, and matter remitted to the Family Court of Otsego County for further proceedings not inconsistent with this court’s decision. Mahoney, P. J., Weiss, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Levine, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

168 A.D.2d 754, 563 N.Y.S.2d 690, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15250, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-joseph-ss-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack