In re Sherman W.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Sherman W.

88 A.D.2d 997, 452 N.Y.S.2d 849, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17399

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

DecidedJune 28, 1982

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 88 A.D.2d 997 (In re Sherman W.) 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 Sherman W., 88 A.D.2d 997, 452 N.Y.S.2d 849, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17399 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

— In separate proceedings pursuant to article 7 of the Family Court Act, the appeals are from two orders of the Family Court, Kings County (Marks, J., at disposition; Donovan, J., at fact finding), both dated July 6, 1981, which adjudged appellant to be a juvenile delinquent on his admissions of having committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of burglary in the third degree, and placed him with the Division for Youth, Title II, for a period of one [998]*998year (as amended by subsequent order of the same court [Huttner, J.], dated February 2, 1982, to Title III). Orders, as amended, reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, fact-finding determinations vacated, and proceedings remitted to the Family Court for new fact-finding hearings. As the Corporation Counsel concedes, the “plea minutes” on which the two challenged orders are based were grossly inadequate in complying with appellant’s constitutional and statutory rights (see Matter of Daniel B., 82 AD2d 761; Matter of Myacutta A., 75 AD2d 774; Matter of John R., 71 AD2d 896), and therefore reversal is mandated. Weinstein, J. P., Thompson, Bracken and Boyers, JJ., concur.

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

— In separate proceedings pursuant to article 7 of the Family Court Act, the appeals are from two orders of the Family Court, Kings County (Marks, J., at disposition; Donovan, J., at fact finding), both dated July 6, 1981, which adjudged appellant to be a juvenile delinquent on his admissions of having committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of burglary in the third degree, and placed him with the Division for Youth, Title II, for a period of one [998]*998year (as amended by subsequent order of the same court [Huttner, J.], dated February 2, 1982, to Title III). Orders, as amended, reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, fact-finding determinations vacated, and proceedings remitted to the Family Court for new fact-finding hearings. As the Corporation Counsel concedes, the “plea minutes” on which the two challenged orders are based were grossly inadequate in complying with appellant’s constitutional and statutory rights (see Matter of Daniel B., 82 AD2d 761; Matter of Myacutta A., 75 AD2d 774; Matter of John R., 71 AD2d 896), and therefore reversal is mandated. Weinstein, J. P., Thompson, Bracken and Boyers, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 A.D.2d 997, 452 N.Y.S.2d 849, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17399, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-sherman-w-nyappdiv-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack