In re Samantha D.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Samantha D.

29 A.D.3d 577, 813 N.Y.S.2d 667

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

DecidedMay 2, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 29 A.D.3d 577 (In re Samantha D.) 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 Samantha D., 29 A.D.3d 577, 813 N.Y.S.2d 667 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

[578]*578In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, the appeal is from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (O’Donoghue, J.), dated April 14, 2005, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court dated June 17, 2004, made after a hearing, finding that the appellant committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of assault in the third degree and menacing in the third degree, adjudged her to be a juvenile delinquent and placed her on probation for a period of 15 months. The appeal brings up for review the fact-finding order dated June 17, 2004.

Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Family Court providently exercised its discretion in restoring the juvenile delinquency proceeding and in declining to dismiss the underlying petition pursuant to the previously-ordered adjournment in contemplation of dismissal (see Family Ct Act § 353.1). After a proper inquiry (see Matter of Edwin L., 88 NY2d 593, 602-603 [1996]), the Family Court determined that the appellant violated the conditions stated in that prior adjournment in contemplation of dismissal by, among other things, failing to attend school on a regular basis (see Matter of Jamel A., 19 AD3d 689 [2005]; Matter of Nikita P., 3 AD3d 499, 501 [2004]). Adams, J.P., Ritter, Mastro and Skelos, JJ., concur.

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

[578]*578In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, the appeal is from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (O’Donoghue, J.), dated April 14, 2005, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court dated June 17, 2004, made after a hearing, finding that the appellant committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of assault in the third degree and menacing in the third degree, adjudged her to be a juvenile delinquent and placed her on probation for a period of 15 months. The appeal brings up for review the fact-finding order dated June 17, 2004.

Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Family Court providently exercised its discretion in restoring the juvenile delinquency proceeding and in declining to dismiss the underlying petition pursuant to the previously-ordered adjournment in contemplation of dismissal (see Family Ct Act § 353.1). After a proper inquiry (see Matter of Edwin L., 88 NY2d 593, 602-603 [1996]), the Family Court determined that the appellant violated the conditions stated in that prior adjournment in contemplation of dismissal by, among other things, failing to attend school on a regular basis (see Matter of Jamel A., 19 AD3d 689 [2005]; Matter of Nikita P., 3 AD3d 499, 501 [2004]). Adams, J.P., Ritter, Mastro and Skelos, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 A.D.3d 577, 813 N.Y.S.2d 667, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-samantha-d-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack