In re Shakeel Mc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Shakeel Mc.

67 A.D.3d 913, 888 N.Y.S.2d 422

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

DecidedNovember 17, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 67 A.D.3d 913 (In re Shakeel Mc.) 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 Shakeel Mc., 67 A.D.3d 913, 888 N.Y.S.2d 422 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 7, the appeal is from an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Dutchess County (Forman, J.), dated November 10, 2008, which, after fact-finding and dispositional hearings, and upon the admission of Shakeel Me. to truancy, adjudicated him to be a person in need of supervision and directed that he be placed in the custody of the Dutchess County Department of Social Services for a period of up to 12 months.

Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order of fact-finding and disposition as directed that the appellant be placed in the custody of the Dutchess County Department of Social Services for a period of up to 12 months is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,

Ordered that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.

The portion of the order of fact-finding and disposition which placed the appellant in the custody of the Dutchess County Department of Social Services for a period of up to 12 months has expired by its own terms. Therefore, the appeal from so much of the order of fact-finding and disposition as placed the appellant in the custody of the Dutchess County Department of Social Services for a period of up to 12 months must be dismissed (see Matter of Toni Ann O., 56 AD3d 563 [2008]; Matter of Andrew Y., 44 AD3d 1063 [2007]).

The petitioner met its burden of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the appellant was a person in need of supervision (see Matter of Toni Ann O., 56 AD3d at 564; Matter of East Islip High School v Ian M., 33 AD3d 921 [2006]; Matter of Joel P., 16 AD3d 511, 512 [2005]; cf. Matter of Iris R., 33 NY2d 987, 988 [1974]).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Fisher, J.P., Angiolillo, Eng and Lott, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 7, the appeal is from an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Dutchess County (Forman, J.), dated November 10, 2008, which, after fact-finding and dispositional hearings, and upon the admission of Shakeel Me. to truancy, adjudicated him to be a person in need of supervision and directed that he be placed in the custody of the Dutchess County Department of Social Services for a period of up to 12 months.

Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order of fact-finding and disposition as directed that the appellant be placed in the custody of the Dutchess County Department of Social Services for a period of up to 12 months is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,

Ordered that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.

The portion of the order of fact-finding and disposition which placed the appellant in the custody of the Dutchess County Department of Social Services for a period of up to 12 months has expired by its own terms. Therefore, the appeal from so much of the order of fact-finding and disposition as placed the appellant in the custody of the Dutchess County Department of Social Services for a period of up to 12 months must be dismissed (see Matter of Toni Ann O., 56 AD3d 563 [2008]; Matter of Andrew Y., 44 AD3d 1063 [2007]).

The petitioner met its burden of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the appellant was a person in need of supervision (see Matter of Toni Ann O., 56 AD3d at 564; Matter of East Islip High School v Ian M., 33 AD3d 921 [2006]; Matter of Joel P., 16 AD3d 511, 512 [2005]; cf. Matter of Iris R., 33 NY2d 987, 988 [1974]).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Fisher, J.P., Angiolillo, Eng and Lott, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

67 A.D.3d 913, 888 N.Y.S.2d 422, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-shakeel-mc-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack