In re Michael H.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Michael H.

239 A.D.2d 618, 657 N.Y.S.2d 117, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4530

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

DecidedMay 1, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 239 A.D.2d 618 (In re Michael H.) 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 Michael H., 239 A.D.2d 618, 657 N.Y.S.2d 117, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4530 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

White, J.

After a fact-finding hearing, Family Court rendered a bench decision finding that respondent was a person in need of supervision. Subsequently, a dispositional order was entered suspending judgment for one year upon certain conditions. Respondent appeals.

[619]*619Initially, we note that respondent’s appeal from the order of disposition brings up for review the fact-finding order (see, Matter of Herbert RR., 214 AD2d 891, 892, n; Matter of Herbert TT., 192 AD2d 916, 917). We further note that, although the dispositional order is moot because the suspended judgment has expired (see, Matter of Demetrius X., 228 AD2d 804), the PINS adjudication is not moot as it may involve " 'a possibility of collateral legal consequences’ ” (Matter of Tabitha LL., 216 AD2d 651, 653, affd 87 NY2d 1009; see, Matter of Erik R, 42 AD2d 908, 909).

Based on our review of the record, it is clear that the evidence adduced at the fact-finding hearing established beyond a reasonable doubt that respondent is a person in need of supervision.

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Crew III and Yesawich Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.

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

White, J.

After a fact-finding hearing, Family Court rendered a bench decision finding that respondent was a person in need of supervision. Subsequently, a dispositional order was entered suspending judgment for one year upon certain conditions. Respondent appeals.

[619]*619Initially, we note that respondent’s appeal from the order of disposition brings up for review the fact-finding order (see, Matter of Herbert RR., 214 AD2d 891, 892, n; Matter of Herbert TT., 192 AD2d 916, 917). We further note that, although the dispositional order is moot because the suspended judgment has expired (see, Matter of Demetrius X., 228 AD2d 804), the PINS adjudication is not moot as it may involve " 'a possibility of collateral legal consequences’ ” (Matter of Tabitha LL., 216 AD2d 651, 653, affd 87 NY2d 1009; see, Matter of Erik R, 42 AD2d 908, 909).

Based on our review of the record, it is clear that the evidence adduced at the fact-finding hearing established beyond a reasonable doubt that respondent is a person in need of supervision.

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Crew III and Yesawich Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

239 A.D.2d 618, 657 N.Y.S.2d 117, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4530, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-michael-h-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack