In re Samuel R.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Samuel R.

62 A.D.3d 527, 878 N.Y.S.2d 619

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

DecidedMay 19, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 62 A.D.3d 527 (In re Samuel R.) 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 R., 62 A.D.3d 527, 878 N.Y.S.2d 619 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Orders, Family Court, Bronx County (Juan M. Merchan, J.), entered on or about April 18, 2008 and April 28, 2008, which remanded appellant to a detention facility operated by the New York City Department of Juvenile Justice, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the order vacated.

For the reasons stated in Matter of Jazmin A. (62 AD3d 526 [2009] [decided herewith]), we conclude that appellant was unlawfully remanded to detention in the absence of a violation of probation petition. Since there was no compliance with the procedural requirements of Family Court Act § 355.2, we similarly decline to decide the hypothetical questions presented concerning Family Court Act § 355.1. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Sweeny, Nardelli and Freedman, JJ.

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

Orders, Family Court, Bronx County (Juan M. Merchan, J.), entered on or about April 18, 2008 and April 28, 2008, which remanded appellant to a detention facility operated by the New York City Department of Juvenile Justice, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the order vacated.

For the reasons stated in Matter of Jazmin A. (62 AD3d 526 [2009] [decided herewith]), we conclude that appellant was unlawfully remanded to detention in the absence of a violation of probation petition. Since there was no compliance with the procedural requirements of Family Court Act § 355.2, we similarly decline to decide the hypothetical questions presented concerning Family Court Act § 355.1. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Sweeny, Nardelli and Freedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

62 A.D.3d 527, 878 N.Y.S.2d 619, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-samuel-r-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack