In re Latoya S.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Latoya S.

231 A.D.2d 844, 648 N.Y.S.2d 395, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14203

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

DecidedSeptember 27, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 231 A.D.2d 844 (In re Latoya 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 Latoya S., 231 A.D.2d 844, 648 N.Y.S.2d 395, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14203 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Family Court did not abuse its discretion in placing respondent with the Monroe County Department of Social Services for placement in a private facility for 18 months. The court’s determination that placement was in the child’s best interest is fully supported by the record (see, Matter of Tynisah S., 201 AD2d 958). The order of disposition complies with Family Court Act § 754 (2) because the court therein set forth its reasons for the particular disposition and determined that continuation in the child’s home would be contrary to the best interests of the child and that reasonable efforts were made to prevent or eliminate the need for removal of the child from her home (see, Matter of Tynisah S., supra). (Appeal from Order of Monroe County Family Court, Kohout, J.—Person In Need of Supervision.) Present—Denman, P. J., Pine, Fallon, Wesley and Davis, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Family Court did not abuse its discretion in placing respondent with the Monroe County Department of Social Services for placement in a private facility for 18 months. The court’s determination that placement was in the child’s best interest is fully supported by the record (see, Matter of Tynisah S., 201 AD2d 958). The order of disposition complies with Family Court Act § 754 (2) because the court therein set forth its reasons for the particular disposition and determined that continuation in the child’s home would be contrary to the best interests of the child and that reasonable efforts were made to prevent or eliminate the need for removal of the child from her home (see, Matter of Tynisah S., supra). (Appeal from Order of Monroe County Family Court, Kohout, J.—Person In Need of Supervision.) Present—Denman, P. J., Pine, Fallon, Wesley and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

231 A.D.2d 844, 648 N.Y.S.2d 395, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14203, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-latoya-s-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack