In re Sylvia J.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Sylvia J.

47 A.D.2d 905, 369 N.Y.S.2d 998, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9324

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

DecidedApril 7, 1975

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 47 A.D.2d 905 (In re Sylvia J.) 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 Sylvia J., 47 A.D.2d 905, 369 N.Y.S.2d 998, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9324 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to article 7 of the Family Court Act, the appeal is from an order of the Family Court, Kings County, dated October 18, 1974, which, upon a prior determination that appellant was a person in need of supervision, committed her to a New York State Training School (Division for Youth, Title III) for 18 months. Order affirmed, without costs. We have examined the probation folder in this case and find that the Family Court Judge did not improvidently exercise his discretion in denying appellant’s counsel access to the probation report and permission to cross-examine the probation officer (People v Perry; People v Ortiz, 36 NY2d 114). Hopkins, Acting P. J., Latham, Cohalan, Brennan and Munder, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to article 7 of the Family Court Act, the appeal is from an order of the Family Court, Kings County, dated October 18, 1974, which, upon a prior determination that appellant was a person in need of supervision, committed her to a New York State Training School (Division for Youth, Title III) for 18 months. Order affirmed, without costs. We have examined the probation folder in this case and find that the Family Court Judge did not improvidently exercise his discretion in denying appellant’s counsel access to the probation report and permission to cross-examine the probation officer (People v Perry; People v Ortiz, 36 NY2d 114). Hopkins, Acting P. J., Latham, Cohalan, Brennan and Munder, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

47 A.D.2d 905, 369 N.Y.S.2d 998, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9324, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-sylvia-j-nyappdiv-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack