In re Samuel M.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Samuel M.

64 A.D.2d 611, 407 N.Y.S.2d 441, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12380

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

DecidedJuly 3, 1978

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 64 A.D.2d 611 (In re Samuel 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 Samuel M., 64 A.D.2d 611, 407 N.Y.S.2d 441, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12380 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Kings County, dated October 12, 1977, which, upon a determination after a fact-finding hearing that appellant had committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute certain crimes, adjudicated him a juvenile delinquent and placed him with the Division for Youth for a period of three years, pursuant to a restrictive placement. Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The Family Court should have made specific written findings of fact as to each of the considerations set forth in subdivision 2 of section 753-a of the Family Court Act (see Matter of Kenneth S., 59 AD2d 744). However, on the facts in the record, we find that the Family Court’s disposition was supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Rabin, J. P., Gulotta, Cohalan and Margett, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Kings County, dated October 12, 1977, which, upon a determination after a fact-finding hearing that appellant had committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute certain crimes, adjudicated him a juvenile delinquent and placed him with the Division for Youth for a period of three years, pursuant to a restrictive placement. Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The Family Court should have made specific written findings of fact as to each of the considerations set forth in subdivision 2 of section 753-a of the Family Court Act (see Matter of Kenneth S., 59 AD2d 744). However, on the facts in the record, we find that the Family Court’s disposition was supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Rabin, J. P., Gulotta, Cohalan and Margett, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

64 A.D.2d 611, 407 N.Y.S.2d 441, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12380, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-samuel-m-nyappdiv-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack