In re Paul Van V.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Paul Van V.

148 A.D.2d 1010, 539 N.Y.S.2d 240, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2537

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

DecidedMarch 10, 1989

StatusPublished

This text of 148 A.D.2d 1010 (In re Paul Van V.) 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 Paul Van V., 148 A.D.2d 1010, 539 N.Y.S.2d 240, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2537 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and matter remitted to Oswego County Family Court for further proceedings on the petition. Memorandum: The admission to the allegations of the petition, as amended, was made by respondent’s attorney and not by respondent personally. The court did not ascertain through allocution that respondent admitted to the acts alleged in the amended petition, that he voluntarily waived his rights to a fact-finding hearing, and that he was aware of the possible dispositional orders (see, Family Ct Act § 321.3). Accordingly, the court should not have accepted the admission (Matter of William C., 140 AD2d 1004). (Appeal from order of Oswego

[1011]*1011County Family Court, Comstock, J. — juvenile delinquency.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Doerr, Green and Davis, JJ.

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

Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and matter remitted to Oswego County Family Court for further proceedings on the petition. Memorandum: The admission to the allegations of the petition, as amended, was made by respondent’s attorney and not by respondent personally. The court did not ascertain through allocution that respondent admitted to the acts alleged in the amended petition, that he voluntarily waived his rights to a fact-finding hearing, and that he was aware of the possible dispositional orders (see, Family Ct Act § 321.3). Accordingly, the court should not have accepted the admission (Matter of William C., 140 AD2d 1004). (Appeal from order of Oswego

[1011]*1011County Family Court, Comstock, J. — juvenile delinquency.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Doerr, Green and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

148 A.D.2d 1010, 539 N.Y.S.2d 240, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2537, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-paul-van-v-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack