In re Sammie C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Sammie C.

27 A.D.3d 382, 811 N.Y.S.2d 393

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

DecidedMarch 28, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 27 A.D.3d 382 (In re Sammie C.) 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 Sammie C., 27 A.D.3d 382, 811 N.Y.S.2d 393 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Alma Cordova, J.), entered on or about August 4, 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 up to 12 months in a limited secure facility, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[383]*383The 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]). The evidence established that appellant violated his probation by being discharged from a substance abuse program because of his misbehavior, and that appellant understood that attendance at the program was a special condition of his probation. At the hearing, no issue was raised as to whether the program appropriately discharged appellant. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Sullivan, Williams, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.

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

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Alma Cordova, J.), entered on or about August 4, 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 up to 12 months in a limited secure facility, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[383]*383The 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]). The evidence established that appellant violated his probation by being discharged from a substance abuse program because of his misbehavior, and that appellant understood that attendance at the program was a special condition of his probation. At the hearing, no issue was raised as to whether the program appropriately discharged appellant. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Sullivan, Williams, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.3d 382, 811 N.Y.S.2d 393, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-sammie-c-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack