Home/New York Court of Appeals/Matter of Tabitha LL.

Matter of Tabitha LL.

666 N.E.2d 171, 87 N.Y.2d 1009, 643 N.Y.S.2d 466, 1996 N.Y. LEXIS 296
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedMarch 21, 1996
StatusPublished
Cited by17 cases

This text of 666 N.E.2d 171 (Matter of Tabitha LL.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Matter of Tabitha LL., 666 N.E.2d 171, 87 N.Y.2d 1009, 643 N.Y.S.2d 466, 1996 N.Y. LEXIS 296 (N.Y. 1996).

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs.

Respondent was adjudicated a person in need of supervision (PINS) in a Family Court Act article 7 proceeding. At her arraignment, respondent was assigned counsel and initially advised of her right to remain silent, as required by Family Court Act § 741. However, she was not accorded the procedural safeguards embodied in Family Court Act § 321.3, the article governing juvenile delinquency proceedings. She argues on this appeal that Family Court’s failure to follow these procedures before she entered an admission on the charges constitutes reversible error. We disagree.

Article 3 explicitly requires that the Family Court advise a respondent that by making an admission he or she is waiving the right to a fact-finding hearing, and ascertain that respondent is aware of the possible specific dispositional orders (Fam *1011 ily Court Act § 321.3 [1]). There is no comparable provision in article 7. There is no legislative history or rule of statutory construction that would permit us to read into article 7 an express provision of article 3. * As respondent was sufficiently advised of her rights to the extent required under Family Court Act § 741, she received all the protection required by the statute. Respondent’s constitutional arguments are unpreserved for our review. Under the circumstances, her admissions were not invalid.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick concur.

Order affirmed, without costs, in a memorandum.

*

To the extent Matter of Jacqueline P. (149 AD2d 933), Matter of Rickey B. (158 AD2d 1002), and Matter of Christopher W. (154 AD2d 937) are to the contrary, they are not to be followed.

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

Related

In re Karis OO.
84 A.D.3d 1495 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
In re Jennifer QQ.
63 A.D.3d 1232 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
In re Jamel A.
19 A.D.3d 689 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
In re Investigation No. 04-730
8 Misc. 3d 238 (New York County Courts, 2005)
In re of Sarah G.
11 A.D.3d 976 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
In re Crystal A.
11 A.D.3d 897 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Matter of Robert J.
811 N.E.2d 25 (New York Court of Appeals, 2004)
In re Samantha T.
296 A.D.2d 869 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
In re Todd Z.
295 A.D.2d 652 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
In re Jodi VV.
295 A.D.2d 659 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
In re Libby G.
278 A.D.2d 761 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
In re Chad H.
278 A.D.2d 601 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
In re Atiba Andrew B.
275 A.D.2d 320 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
In re Mark J.
259 A.D.2d 40 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
In re Daniel H.
236 A.D.2d 874 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
In re Jamie EE.
232 A.D.2d 761 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
In re Randy SS.
226 A.D.2d 799 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
666 N.E.2d 171, 87 N.Y.2d 1009, 643 N.Y.S.2d 466, 1996 N.Y. LEXIS 296, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-tabitha-ll-ny-1996.