In re Marsharita K.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Marsharita K.

278 A.D.2d 939, 718 N.Y.S.2d 678, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13524

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

DecidedDecember 27, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 278 A.D.2d 939 (In re Marsharita K.) 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 Marsharita K., 278 A.D.2d 939, 718 N.Y.S.2d 678, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13524 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Family Court did not abuse its discretion in directing respondent’s placement with the Office of Children and Family Services in a limited secure facility. The evidence at the dispositional hear[940]*940ing establishes that respondent is a danger to herself and others in a less restrictive environment and that her “problems and needs can be addressed most effectively in a limited secure facility” (Matter of Vidal W., 267 AD2d 1104; see, Matter of Donald M., 263 AD2d 957, 958; Matter of Willie J. H., 258 AD2d 938). We have examined respondent’s remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit. (Appeal from Order of Monroe County Family Court, Miller, J. — Placement.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Hayes, Wisner, Scudder and Law-ton, 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 directing respondent’s placement with the Office of Children and Family Services in a limited secure facility. The evidence at the dispositional hear[940]*940ing establishes that respondent is a danger to herself and others in a less restrictive environment and that her “problems and needs can be addressed most effectively in a limited secure facility” (Matter of Vidal W., 267 AD2d 1104; see, Matter of Donald M., 263 AD2d 957, 958; Matter of Willie J. H., 258 AD2d 938). We have examined respondent’s remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit. (Appeal from Order of Monroe County Family Court, Miller, J. — Placement.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Hayes, Wisner, Scudder and Law-ton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

278 A.D.2d 939, 718 N.Y.S.2d 678, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13524, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-marsharita-k-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack