In re Patrick E.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Patrick E.

216 A.D.2d 933, 629 N.Y.S.2d 701, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7265

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

DecidedJune 9, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 216 A.D.2d 933 (In re Patrick E.) 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 Patrick E., 216 A.D.2d 933, 629 N.Y.S.2d 701, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7265 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: We reject the contention that respondent was deprived of a fair trial and due process of law by the conduct of Family Court. It was improper for the court to consider evidence of respondent’s dismissal from a counselling program that was not admitted during the hearing. That error is harmless, however, because there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the court’s determination that respondent violated the terms of his probation by failing to report to his probation officer and by failing to obey the court-imposed curfew (see, Matter of Thomas RR., 112 AD2d 584, 585). (Appeal from Order of Monroe County Family Court, Bonadio, J.—Violation of Probation.) Present—Green, J. P., Fallon, Callahan, Doerr 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: We reject the contention that respondent was deprived of a fair trial and due process of law by the conduct of Family Court. It was improper for the court to consider evidence of respondent’s dismissal from a counselling program that was not admitted during the hearing. That error is harmless, however, because there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the court’s determination that respondent violated the terms of his probation by failing to report to his probation officer and by failing to obey the court-imposed curfew (see, Matter of Thomas RR., 112 AD2d 584, 585). (Appeal from Order of Monroe County Family Court, Bonadio, J.—Violation of Probation.) Present—Green, J. P., Fallon, Callahan, Doerr and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

216 A.D.2d 933, 629 N.Y.S.2d 701, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7265, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-patrick-e-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack