In re Kharlique G.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Kharlique G.

37 A.D.3d 365, 829 N.Y.S.2d 900

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

DecidedFebruary 27, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 37 A.D.3d 365 (In re Kharlique G.) 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 Kharlique G., 37 A.D.3d 365, 829 N.Y.S.2d 900 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Susan R. Larabee, J.), entered on or about February 27, 2006, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon his admission that he had committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of robbery in the first degree, and placed him in the custody of the Office of Children and Family Services for a period of 6 to 18 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The placement was a proper exercise of the court’s discretion that constituted the least restrictive alternative consistent with the needs of appellant and the community (see Matter of Katherine W., 62 NY2d 947 [1984]), particularly in view of the seriousness of the crime and appellant’s significant mental health issues. Concur—Andrias, J.P, Friedman, Sullivan, Williams and Catterson, JJ.

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

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Susan R. Larabee, J.), entered on or about February 27, 2006, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon his admission that he had committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of robbery in the first degree, and placed him in the custody of the Office of Children and Family Services for a period of 6 to 18 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The placement was a proper exercise of the court’s discretion that constituted the least restrictive alternative consistent with the needs of appellant and the community (see Matter of Katherine W., 62 NY2d 947 [1984]), particularly in view of the seriousness of the crime and appellant’s significant mental health issues. Concur—Andrias, J.P, Friedman, Sullivan, Williams and Catterson, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 A.D.3d 365, 829 N.Y.S.2d 900, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-kharlique-g-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack