In re Tanya B.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Tanya B.

125 A.D.2d 1006, 510 N.Y.S.2d 504, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 63204

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

DecidedDecember 19, 1986

StatusPublished

This text of 125 A.D.2d 1006 (In re Tanya B.) 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 Tanya B., 125 A.D.2d 1006, 510 N.Y.S.2d 504, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 63204 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal unanimously dismissed, without costs. Memorandum: In this proceeding to adjudicate respondent a person in need of supervision, respondent appeals from an order of adjournment, for a period of six months, in contemplation of dismissal. Because the matter was not restored to the calendar within the six-month period, the petition is deemed dismissed in the furtherance of justice (see, Family Ct Act § 749). The order resulting in dismissal is manifestly in respondent’s favor. Not being aggrieved by the order, she has no right to appeal therefrom (see, People v Marinoff, 98 Mise 2d 367; CPLR 5511; Family Ct Act § 1118). (Appeal from order of Erie County Family Court, Honan, J. — PINS.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Denman, Boomer, Green and Balio, JJ.

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

Appeal unanimously dismissed, without costs. Memorandum: In this proceeding to adjudicate respondent a person in need of supervision, respondent appeals from an order of adjournment, for a period of six months, in contemplation of dismissal. Because the matter was not restored to the calendar within the six-month period, the petition is deemed dismissed in the furtherance of justice (see, Family Ct Act § 749). The order resulting in dismissal is manifestly in respondent’s favor. Not being aggrieved by the order, she has no right to appeal therefrom (see, People v Marinoff, 98 Mise 2d 367; CPLR 5511; Family Ct Act § 1118). (Appeal from order of Erie County Family Court, Honan, J. — PINS.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Denman, Boomer, Green and Balio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

125 A.D.2d 1006, 510 N.Y.S.2d 504, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 63204, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-tanya-b-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack