In re Yohannes A.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Yohannes A.

243 A.D.2d 316, 664 N.Y.S.2d 530, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9874

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

DecidedOctober 16, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 243 A.D.2d 316 (In re Yohannes A.) 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 Yohannes A., 243 A.D.2d 316, 664 N.Y.S.2d 530, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9874 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Leah Marks, J.), entered on or about January 12, 1996, which determined that appellant had violated the terms of his probation and placed him in the custody of the Division for Youth for a period of 18 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court applied the appropriate standard, to wit, proof by a preponderance of the evidence (Matter of Alpheaus M., 168 AD2d 208, 209). Appellant’s attendance records were properly admitted (CPLR 2307, 4518; Education Law § 3211 [2]). The court’s determination that the least restrictive alternative for appellant was placement was supported by appellant’s failure to show any improvement, as indicated by his violation of every condition of his probation, and by the conclusions of appellant’s probation officer and the examining psychologist (see, Matter of Katherine W., 62 NY2d 947). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Wallach, Nardelli, Tom and Colabella, JJ.

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

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Leah Marks, J.), entered on or about January 12, 1996, which determined that appellant had violated the terms of his probation and placed him in the custody of the Division for Youth for a period of 18 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court applied the appropriate standard, to wit, proof by a preponderance of the evidence (Matter of Alpheaus M., 168 AD2d 208, 209). Appellant’s attendance records were properly admitted (CPLR 2307, 4518; Education Law § 3211 [2]). The court’s determination that the least restrictive alternative for appellant was placement was supported by appellant’s failure to show any improvement, as indicated by his violation of every condition of his probation, and by the conclusions of appellant’s probation officer and the examining psychologist (see, Matter of Katherine W., 62 NY2d 947). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Wallach, Nardelli, Tom and Colabella, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

243 A.D.2d 316, 664 N.Y.S.2d 530, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9874, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-yohannes-a-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack