In re Rene A.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Rene A.

34 A.D.3d 223, 822 N.Y.S.2d 707

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

DecidedNovember 2, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 34 A.D.3d 223 (In re Rene A.) 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 Rene A., 34 A.D.3d 223, 822 N.Y.S.2d 707 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Alma Cordova, J.), entered on or about August 4, 2005, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon his admission that he had committed an act, which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of trespass in the third degree, and placed him with the Office of Children and Family Services for a period of up to 12 months, unanimously dismissed as moot, without costs.

Appellant’s challenge to the court’s dispositional order is moot, since he has already completed his placement (see Matter of Yuan Tung C., 296 AD2d 323 [2002]). Were we not dismissing the appeal, we would find that the placement was a proper exercise of discretion (see Family Ct Act § 352.2 [2] [a]). Concur—Tom, J.E, Mazzarelli, Andrias, Sweeny and Malone, JJ.

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

Appeal from order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Alma Cordova, J.), entered on or about August 4, 2005, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon his admission that he had committed an act, which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of trespass in the third degree, and placed him with the Office of Children and Family Services for a period of up to 12 months, unanimously dismissed as moot, without costs.

Appellant’s challenge to the court’s dispositional order is moot, since he has already completed his placement (see Matter of Yuan Tung C., 296 AD2d 323 [2002]). Were we not dismissing the appeal, we would find that the placement was a proper exercise of discretion (see Family Ct Act § 352.2 [2] [a]). Concur—Tom, J.E, Mazzarelli, Andrias, Sweeny and Malone, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 A.D.3d 223, 822 N.Y.S.2d 707, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-rene-a-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack