In re Raquel R.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Raquel R.

273 A.D.2d 106, 710 N.Y.S.2d 884, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6639

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

DecidedJune 15, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 273 A.D.2d 106 (In re Raquel R.) 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 Raquel R., 273 A.D.2d 106, 710 N.Y.S.2d 884, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6639 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Clark Richardson, J.), entered on or about May 8, 1998, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon her admission that she committed a designated felony act which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of robbery in the first degree, and ordered restrictive placement with the Office of Children and Family Services for an initial period of 3 years, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly exercised its discretion in ordering restrictive placement based upon its determination that the needs and best interests of appellant and the safety of the community mandated placement given the seriousness of the crime as well as appellant’s predatory tendencies (see, Family Ct Act §353.5 [1], [2]; Matter of Manuel R., 89 NY2d 1043, 1045). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Tom, Mazzarelli, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

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

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Clark Richardson, J.), entered on or about May 8, 1998, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon her admission that she committed a designated felony act which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of robbery in the first degree, and ordered restrictive placement with the Office of Children and Family Services for an initial period of 3 years, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly exercised its discretion in ordering restrictive placement based upon its determination that the needs and best interests of appellant and the safety of the community mandated placement given the seriousness of the crime as well as appellant’s predatory tendencies (see, Family Ct Act §353.5 [1], [2]; Matter of Manuel R., 89 NY2d 1043, 1045). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Tom, Mazzarelli, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

273 A.D.2d 106, 710 N.Y.S.2d 884, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6639, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-raquel-r-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack