In re Tanya B.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Tanya B.

127 A.D.2d 1011, 513 N.Y.S.2d 314, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43519

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

DecidedFebruary 27, 1987

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 127 A.D.2d 1011 (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., 127 A.D.2d 1011, 513 N.Y.S.2d 314, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43519 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

Motion for reargument granted and upon reargument memorandum decision dated December 19, 1986 [125 AD2d 1006] amended to read as follows:

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 dismissal is manifestly in respondent’s favor (see, People v Marinoff, 98 Misc 2d 367; CPLR 5511; Family Ct Act § 1118). Since she is no longer aggrieved by the order, the appeal is moot.

The statement in Matter of Denise M. W. (122 AD2d 556), that there may be collateral legal consequences resulting from an order granting an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal, is incorrect insofar as it applies to such an order after the petition has been dismissed and there is no longer any adjudication. Absent an adjudication, there can be no legal consequences. 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

Motion for reargument granted and upon reargument memorandum decision dated December 19, 1986 [125 AD2d 1006] amended to read as follows:

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 dismissal is manifestly in respondent’s favor (see, People v Marinoff, 98 Misc 2d 367; CPLR 5511; Family Ct Act § 1118). Since she is no longer aggrieved by the order, the appeal is moot.

The statement in Matter of Denise M. W. (122 AD2d 556), that there may be collateral legal consequences resulting from an order granting an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal, is incorrect insofar as it applies to such an order after the petition has been dismissed and there is no longer any adjudication. Absent an adjudication, there can be no legal consequences. Present — Callahan, J. P., Denman, Boomer, Green and Balio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 A.D.2d 1011, 513 N.Y.S.2d 314, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43519, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-tanya-b-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack