In re Sambit M.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Sambit M.

277 A.D.2d 29, 718 N.Y.S.2d 814, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11294

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

DecidedNovember 9, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 277 A.D.2d 29 (In re Sambit M.) 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 Sambit M., 277 A.D.2d 29, 718 N.Y.S.2d 814, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11294 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order of disposition, Family Court, New .York County (Sheldon Rand, J.), entered April 27, 1999, 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 reckless endangerment in the second degree, and conditionally discharged him for a period of 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Given the seriousness of appellant’s conduct and his need for continued counseling, we find that the court adopted the least restrictive available alternative consistent with appellant’s [30]*30needs (Family Ct Act § 352.2 [2]; Matter of Katherine W., 62 NY2d 947). Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Rosenberger, Williams, Ellerin and Buckley, JJ.

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

—Order of disposition, Family Court, New .York County (Sheldon Rand, J.), entered April 27, 1999, 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 reckless endangerment in the second degree, and conditionally discharged him for a period of 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Given the seriousness of appellant’s conduct and his need for continued counseling, we find that the court adopted the least restrictive available alternative consistent with appellant’s [30]*30needs (Family Ct Act § 352.2 [2]; Matter of Katherine W., 62 NY2d 947). Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Rosenberger, Williams, Ellerin and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

277 A.D.2d 29, 718 N.Y.S.2d 814, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11294, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-sambit-m-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack