In re Kevin T.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Kevin T.

66 A.D.2d 822, 411 N.Y.S.2d 202, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14146

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

DecidedDecember 18, 1978

StatusPublished

This text of 66 A.D.2d 822 (In re Kevin T.) 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 Kevin T., 66 A.D.2d 822, 411 N.Y.S.2d 202, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14146 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Queens County, dated April 10, 1978 which, upon a fact-finding adjudication that the appellant is a juvenile delinquent, placed him with the Division for Youth, Title III, for a period not to exceed 18 months. Order reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and proceeding remanded to the Family Court, Queens County, for a de novo dispositional hearing and determination. The appellant argues and the respondent correctly concedes that the dispositional hearing in this case did not comply with the provisions of the Family Court Act. Therefore, a new dispositional hearing is required. Because of our decision in this case, we have not considered the other issues raised by the appellant. Latham, J. P., Titone, Margett and Hawkins, 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, Queens County, dated April 10, 1978 which, upon a fact-finding adjudication that the appellant is a juvenile delinquent, placed him with the Division for Youth, Title III, for a period not to exceed 18 months. Order reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and proceeding remanded to the Family Court, Queens County, for a de novo dispositional hearing and determination. The appellant argues and the respondent correctly concedes that the dispositional hearing in this case did not comply with the provisions of the Family Court Act. Therefore, a new dispositional hearing is required. Because of our decision in this case, we have not considered the other issues raised by the appellant. Latham, J. P., Titone, Margett and Hawkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

66 A.D.2d 822, 411 N.Y.S.2d 202, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14146, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-kevin-t-nyappdiv-1978.