In re Nicholas T.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Nicholas T.

224 A.D.2d 974, 638 N.Y.S.2d 572, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1619

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

DecidedFebruary 2, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 224 A.D.2d 974 (In re Nicholas T.) 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 Nicholas T., 224 A.D.2d 974, 638 N.Y.S.2d 572, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1619 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Family Court’s determination placing respondent in the custody of the Commissioner of Social Services for structured supervision in a residential facility is fully supported by the record (see, Matter of Hasan R., 177 AD2d 817, 818). The contention of respondent that the order of disposition does not comply with Family Court Act § 754 (2) is without merit. The reasons for the disposition are fully set forth in the order (cf, Matter of Tynisah S., 201 AD2d 958).

We call attention to the fact that the County Attorney failed to submit an answering brief. That failure hardly comports with his responsibilities in these matters. (Appeal from Order of Erie County Family Court, Mix, J. — Violation of Probation.) Present — Denman, P. J., Lawton, Doerr, Balio and Boehm, 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’s determination placing respondent in the custody of the Commissioner of Social Services for structured supervision in a residential facility is fully supported by the record (see, Matter of Hasan R., 177 AD2d 817, 818). The contention of respondent that the order of disposition does not comply with Family Court Act § 754 (2) is without merit. The reasons for the disposition are fully set forth in the order (cf, Matter of Tynisah S., 201 AD2d 958).

We call attention to the fact that the County Attorney failed to submit an answering brief. That failure hardly comports with his responsibilities in these matters. (Appeal from Order of Erie County Family Court, Mix, J. — Violation of Probation.) Present — Denman, P. J., Lawton, Doerr, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

224 A.D.2d 974, 638 N.Y.S.2d 572, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1619, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-nicholas-t-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack