In re Kenneth S.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Kenneth S.

59 A.D.2d 744, 398 N.Y.S.2d 562, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13751

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

DecidedOctober 17, 1977

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 59 A.D.2d 744 (In re Kenneth S.) 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 Kenneth S., 59 A.D.2d 744, 398 N.Y.S.2d 562, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13751 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Family Coprt, Kings County, dated June 8, 1977, which, upon a determination that appellant is a juvenile delinquent, made after a fact-finding hearing, placed him with the Division for Youth for a period of three years, pursuant to a restrictive placement. Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The Family Court failed to comply with subdivision 1 of section 753-a of the Family Court Act because it placed appellant restrictively without making specific written findings of fact as to the considerations stated in subdivision 2 (pars [a], [b], [c]) of section 753-a. That should have been done. However, a preponderance of the evidence presented as to each of the required considerations stated in subdivision 2 supports the court’s disposition (see Family Ct Act, § 753-a, subd 1). The absence of certain of the required written findings did not affect the fairness of the dispositional hearing accorded appellant and, accordingly, no new hearing is warranted. Damiani, J. P., Shapiro, Mollen and O’Connor, 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 Coprt, Kings County, dated June 8, 1977, which, upon a determination that appellant is a juvenile delinquent, made after a fact-finding hearing, placed him with the Division for Youth for a period of three years, pursuant to a restrictive placement. Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The Family Court failed to comply with subdivision 1 of section 753-a of the Family Court Act because it placed appellant restrictively without making specific written findings of fact as to the considerations stated in subdivision 2 (pars [a], [b], [c]) of section 753-a. That should have been done. However, a preponderance of the evidence presented as to each of the required considerations stated in subdivision 2 supports the court’s disposition (see Family Ct Act, § 753-a, subd 1). The absence of certain of the required written findings did not affect the fairness of the dispositional hearing accorded appellant and, accordingly, no new hearing is warranted. Damiani, J. P., Shapiro, Mollen and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 A.D.2d 744, 398 N.Y.S.2d 562, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13751, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-kenneth-s-nyappdiv-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack