In re Ricky BB

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Ricky BB

56 A.D.2d 675, 391 N.Y.S.2d 479, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10826

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

DecidedFebruary 10, 1977

StatusPublished

This text of 56 A.D.2d 675 (In re Ricky BB) 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 Ricky BB, 56 A.D.2d 675, 391 N.Y.S.2d 479, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10826 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, entered May 10,1976 in St. Lawrence County, which found respondent to be a Person in Need of Supervision, and placed him with the New York State Division of Youth at Tryon located at Johnstown, New York, for a period of 18 months. Determination of this appeal was withheld and the matter was remitted to the Family Court for the purpose of setting forth the facts upon which it based its finding that respondent was a Person in Need of Supervision (Matter of Ricky BB, 55 AD2d 800). Adequate findings have now been formulated, as required by section 752 of the Family Court Act. We have examined respondent’s contentions that he was denied due process, and that placing him with the Division of Youth was an improper disposition of his case, and find no merit to such contentions. Order affirmed, without costs. Koreman, P. J., Mahoney, Main, Larkin and Herlihy, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, entered May 10,1976 in St. Lawrence County, which found respondent to be a Person in Need of Supervision, and placed him with the New York State Division of Youth at Tryon located at Johnstown, New York, for a period of 18 months. Determination of this appeal was withheld and the matter was remitted to the Family Court for the purpose of setting forth the facts upon which it based its finding that respondent was a Person in Need of Supervision (Matter of Ricky BB, 55 AD2d 800). Adequate findings have now been formulated, as required by section 752 of the Family Court Act. We have examined respondent’s contentions that he was denied due process, and that placing him with the Division of Youth was an improper disposition of his case, and find no merit to such contentions. Order affirmed, without costs. Koreman, P. J., Mahoney, Main, Larkin and Herlihy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 A.D.2d 675, 391 N.Y.S.2d 479, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10826, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-ricky-bb-nyappdiv-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack