In re Roland H.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Roland H.

30 A.D.3d 225, 816 N.Y.S.2d 460

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 13, 2006·Published

Opinion

Order, Family Court, New York County (Mary E. Bednar, J.), entered on or about November 10, 2005, which, after a violation of probation hearing, revoked appellant’s probation and placed him in the custody of the New York State Office of Children and Family Services for a period of 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[226]*226The court’s determination that appellant violated the terms and conditions of his probation to an extent warranting revocation is supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see Matter of Alpheaus M., 168 AD2d 208 [1990]), which included evidence properly received as admissions by appellant. The evidence established that appellant violated his probation by being discharged from a counseling program because of nonattendance, and that appellant understood that attendance at the program was a special condition of his probation. Appellant’s excuses for his lack of attendance are without merit. Concur— Mazzarelli, J.E, Andrias, Nardelli, Gonzalez and Malone, JJ.

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

Order, Family Court, New York County (Mary E. Bednar, J.), entered on or about November 10, 2005, which, after a violation of probation hearing, revoked appellant’s probation and placed him in the custody of the New York State Office of Children and Family Services for a period of 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[226]*226The court’s determination that appellant violated the terms and conditions of his probation to an extent warranting revocation is supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see Matter of Alpheaus M., 168 AD2d 208 [1990]), which included evidence properly received as admissions by appellant. The evidence established that appellant violated his probation by being discharged from a counseling program because of nonattendance, and that appellant understood that attendance at the program was a special condition of his probation. Appellant’s excuses for his lack of attendance are without merit. Concur— Mazzarelli, J.E, Andrias, Nardelli, Gonzalez and Malone, JJ.

In re Roland H., 30 A.D.3d 225, 816 N.Y.S.2d 460 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

30 A.D.3d 225 (In re Roland H.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related