In re Kyle S.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Kyle S.

60 A.D.2d 847, 400 N.Y.S.2d 576, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9868

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

DecidedJanuary 3, 1978

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 60 A.D.2d 847 (In re Kyle 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 Kyle S., 60 A.D.2d 847, 400 N.Y.S.2d 576, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9868 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

In a juvenile delinquency proceeding, the appeal is from an order of the Family Court, Kings County, dated May 6, 1977, which, after a fact-finding determination that appellant had committed acts which if done by an adult would constitute the crime of robbery in the second degree, placed him with the Division for Youth. Order reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and proceeding remitted to the Family Court for a new dispositional hearing. The failure of the Family Court Judge to direct the ultimate placement of appellant in a particular facility or class of agency requires that appellant be granted a new dispositional hearing. Subdivision (a) of section 756 of the Family Court Act does not authorize unspecified placements in which the Division for Youth is given complete discretion for placement in any type of facility (see Matter of Francisco R., 56 AD2d 847). Rabin, J. P., Titone, Suozzi and Mollen, JJ., concur.

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

In a juvenile delinquency proceeding, the appeal is from an order of the Family Court, Kings County, dated May 6, 1977, which, after a fact-finding determination that appellant had committed acts which if done by an adult would constitute the crime of robbery in the second degree, placed him with the Division for Youth. Order reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and proceeding remitted to the Family Court for a new dispositional hearing. The failure of the Family Court Judge to direct the ultimate placement of appellant in a particular facility or class of agency requires that appellant be granted a new dispositional hearing. Subdivision (a) of section 756 of the Family Court Act does not authorize unspecified placements in which the Division for Youth is given complete discretion for placement in any type of facility (see Matter of Francisco R., 56 AD2d 847). Rabin, J. P., Titone, Suozzi and Mollen, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

60 A.D.2d 847, 400 N.Y.S.2d 576, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9868, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-kyle-s-nyappdiv-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack