In re Zachary T.D.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Zachary T.D.

26 A.D.3d 801, 809 N.Y.S.2d 359

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

DecidedFebruary 3, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 26 A.D.3d 801 (In re Zachary T.D.) 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 Zachary T.D., 26 A.D.3d 801, 809 N.Y.S.2d 359 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Yates County (W. [802]*802Patrick Falvey, J.), entered February 15, 2005 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3. The order denied the motion of Schuyler County Department of Social Services pursuant to Family Court Act § 355.1 to modify the order of disposition.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Family Court properly denied the motion of Schuyler County Department of Social Services (DSS) pursuant to Family Court Act § 355.1 seeking to modify the order of disposition with respect to respondent, who previously had been adjudicated a juvenile delinquent. DSS failed to make the requisite “showing of a substantial change of circumstances” to warrant modification of the order of disposition (§ 355.1 [1]). Although respondent moved from one house to another across a county line, he did not change his legal address, nor was there a change in his custody, and thus there was no showing of a substantial change of circumstances (see generally Matter of Taye E., 213 AD2d 292 [1995]; Matter of Todd B., 197 AD2d 922 [1993]). DSS contends for the first time on appeal that the placement of respondent should have been determined based on his residency at the time he committed the underlying acts of delinquency, and that contention therefore is not preserved for our review (see generally Matter of Jason F., 243 AD2d 391 [1997]). Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Scudder, Kehoe, Gorski and Green, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Yates County (W. [802]*802Patrick Falvey, J.), entered February 15, 2005 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3. The order denied the motion of Schuyler County Department of Social Services pursuant to Family Court Act § 355.1 to modify the order of disposition.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Family Court properly denied the motion of Schuyler County Department of Social Services (DSS) pursuant to Family Court Act § 355.1 seeking to modify the order of disposition with respect to respondent, who previously had been adjudicated a juvenile delinquent. DSS failed to make the requisite “showing of a substantial change of circumstances” to warrant modification of the order of disposition (§ 355.1 [1]). Although respondent moved from one house to another across a county line, he did not change his legal address, nor was there a change in his custody, and thus there was no showing of a substantial change of circumstances (see generally Matter of Taye E., 213 AD2d 292 [1995]; Matter of Todd B., 197 AD2d 922 [1993]). DSS contends for the first time on appeal that the placement of respondent should have been determined based on his residency at the time he committed the underlying acts of delinquency, and that contention therefore is not preserved for our review (see generally Matter of Jason F., 243 AD2d 391 [1997]). Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Scudder, Kehoe, Gorski and Green, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 A.D.3d 801, 809 N.Y.S.2d 359, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-zachary-td-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack