Home/Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York/In re Yolanda C.

In re Yolanda C.

118 A.D.2d 778, 500 N.Y.S.2d 285, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54634
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 24, 1986
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 118 A.D.2d 778 (In re Yolanda C.) 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 Yolanda C., 118 A.D.2d 778, 500 N.Y.S.2d 285, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54634 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Opinion

— In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, the appeal is from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Deutsch, J.), dated April 10, 1984, which, upon a fact-finding order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Dempsey, J.), dated October 26, 1983, finding that the appellant had committed acts which, if done by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of attempted arson in the second degree and criminal mischief in the fourth degree, upon her plea of guilty, imposed a one-year term of probation. The appeal brings up for review the fact-finding order dated October 26, 1983.

Order reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, without costs or disbursements, fact-finding order vacated, and petition dismissed.

As the Corporation Counsel concedes, the allocution conducted at the fact-finding hearing on which the challenged order was based was inadequate because the Family Court failed to comprehensively apprise the appellant of her various constitutional and statutory rights or of the consequences of a waiver thereof (see, People v Gina M. M., 40 NY2d 595; Matter of Schlena P., 98 AD2d 750; Matter of Randy H., 91 AD2d 685); therefore, reversal is mandated. Since the appellant has already served the one-year term of probation imposed at the dispositional hearing, we see no benefit to be gained from a remittitur for a new fact-finding determination. We have examined the appellant’s remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Mangano, J. P., Niehoff, Rubin and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

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

Related

In re Victor G.
162 Misc. 2d 151 (NYC Family Court, 1994)
In re Mark S.
144 A.D.2d 1010 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1988)
In re Wayne D.
141 A.D.2d 823 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1988)
In re Corey L.
133 A.D.2d 153 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)
In re Nathaniel H.
125 A.D.2d 469 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)
In re John L.
125 A.D.2d 472 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)
In re Salvatore B.
125 A.D.2d 394 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
118 A.D.2d 778, 500 N.Y.S.2d 285, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54634, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-yolanda-c-nyappdiv-1986.