In re Lamedh B.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Lamedh B.

299 A.D.2d 966, 750 N.Y.S.2d 708, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11052

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

DecidedNovember 15, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 299 A.D.2d 966 (In re Lamedh B.) 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 Lamedh B., 299 A.D.2d 966, 750 N.Y.S.2d 708, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11052 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of Family Court, Erie County (McLeod, J.), entered May 1, 2002, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act article 3 to adjudicate respondent a juvenile delinquent.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously modified on the law by reducing the amount of restitution to $60 and as modified the order is affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Family Court did not have authority under Family Ct Act § 353.6 (1) (a) to order restitution of the victim’s unreimbursed dental expenses (see Matter of Keith Z., 195 AD2d 729). Contrary to petitioner’s contention, “Family Court possesses only the power which is explicitly conferred on it-by statute” (Matter of Martin v Martin, 127 AD2d 266, 269; see Matter of Borkowski v Borkowski, 38 AD2d 752, 753). We therefore modify the order by reducing the amount of restitution to $60. Present — Pigott, Jr., P.J., Pine, Wisner, Kehoe and Gorski, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of Family Court, Erie County (McLeod, J.), entered May 1, 2002, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act article 3 to adjudicate respondent a juvenile delinquent.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously modified on the law by reducing the amount of restitution to $60 and as modified the order is affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Family Court did not have authority under Family Ct Act § 353.6 (1) (a) to order restitution of the victim’s unreimbursed dental expenses (see Matter of Keith Z., 195 AD2d 729). Contrary to petitioner’s contention, “Family Court possesses only the power which is explicitly conferred on it-by statute” (Matter of Martin v Martin, 127 AD2d 266, 269; see Matter of Borkowski v Borkowski, 38 AD2d 752, 753). We therefore modify the order by reducing the amount of restitution to $60. Present — Pigott, Jr., P.J., Pine, Wisner, Kehoe and Gorski, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

299 A.D.2d 966, 750 N.Y.S.2d 708, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11052, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-lamedh-b-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack