In re Riordan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Riordan

16 A.D.2d 666, 226 N.Y.S.2d 721, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10469

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

DecidedApril 9, 1962

StatusPublished

This text of 16 A.D.2d 666 (In re Riordan) 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 Riordan, 16 A.D.2d 666, 226 N.Y.S.2d 721, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10469 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding to place a girl under the jurisdiction of the Girls’ Term Court of the City Magistrates’ Court of the City of New York, by reason of her conduct in violation of section 5 of the Girls’ Term Court Act (L. 1951, ,ch. 716, as amd.), Burke Armstrong, an adult, appeals from an order of the said Girls’ Term Court, dated August 9, 1961, which directed him not to associate with the girl, Mary A. Riordan, or to contact her in any manner until the further order of the court. Order affirmed as to the appellant, without costs. The record supports the Magistrate’s finding that the actions of the adult appellant, Burke Armstrong have tended to injure the health, morals and welfare of the girl. We are also of the opinion that the order-appealed from is a final order Avithin the purview of section 25 of the Girls’ Term Court Act. The recent case (Matter of Benedict, 13 A D 2d 511) is distinguishable. The appeal in Benedict was from a third “ order of disposition” made upon an application which the Magistrate had treated as one for reconsideration of his previous orders of disposition; in such third order the Magistrate simply adhered to his prior dispositions. There was no appeal, however, from any of the prior basic orders. Ughetta, Acting P. J. Kleinfeld, Christ, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding to place a girl under the jurisdiction of the Girls’ Term Court of the City Magistrates’ Court of the City of New York, by reason of her conduct in violation of section 5 of the Girls’ Term Court Act (L. 1951, ,ch. 716, as amd.), Burke Armstrong, an adult, appeals from an order of the said Girls’ Term Court, dated August 9, 1961, which directed him not to associate with the girl, Mary A. Riordan, or to contact her in any manner until the further order of the court. Order affirmed as to the appellant, without costs. The record supports the Magistrate’s finding that the actions of the adult appellant, Burke Armstrong have tended to injure the health, morals and welfare of the girl. We are also of the opinion that the order-appealed from is a final order Avithin the purview of section 25 of the Girls’ Term Court Act. The recent case (Matter of Benedict, 13 A D 2d 511) is distinguishable. The appeal in Benedict was from a third “ order of disposition” made upon an application which the Magistrate had treated as one for reconsideration of his previous orders of disposition; in such third order the Magistrate simply adhered to his prior dispositions. There was no appeal, however, from any of the prior basic orders. Ughetta, Acting P. J. Kleinfeld, Christ, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 A.D.2d 666, 226 N.Y.S.2d 721, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10469, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-riordan-nyappdiv-1962.