Matter of William G.

136 A.D.3d 1178, 24 N.Y.S.3d 923, 2016 NY Slip Op 01221, 2016 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1207
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 18, 2016
Docket520697
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 136 A.D.3d 1178 (Matter of William G.) 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
Matter of William G., 136 A.D.3d 1178, 24 N.Y.S.3d 923, 2016 NY Slip Op 01221, 2016 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1207 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Opinion

— Lynch, J.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Tompkins County (Rowley, J.), entered August 19, 2014, which granted petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act article 3, to adjudicate respondent a juvenile delinquent.

In February 2014, respondent appeared in Cortland County Family Court (Ames, J.) and admitted committing an act which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of criminal sexual act in the first degree. Family Court issued an order upon fact-finding adjudicating respondent to be a juvenile delinquent and ordering a predispositional report. Family Court thereafter transferred the matter to Tompkins County, where respondent resided, for disposition. After a dispositional hearing, Tompkins County Family Court (Rowley, J.) ordered respondent to be placed with the Tompkins County Department of Social Services for one year for “non-secure placement with the William George Agency, specializing in sex offender treatment.” Respondent appeals.

Respondent’s core argument on this appeal is that Family Court violated the terms of the plea agreement by placing him outside his home. He further asserts that the evidence did not warrant his placement in a residential treatment facility, as *1179 the least restrictive available alternative. Inasmuch as the dispositional order expired by its own terms in August 2015, these claims are moot (see Matter of Clarence D., 88 AD3d 1074, 1075 [2011]; Matter of Clifton NN., 64 AD3d 903, 905 [2009]; Matter of Brett W., 62 AD3d 1050, 1051 [2009]). That said, the record shows that the plea was accepted without any promises as to what the actual disposition would be.

McCarthy, J.P., Egan Jr. and Clark, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.

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

Related

Matter of Ako LL.
139 A.D.3d 1130 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
136 A.D.3d 1178, 24 N.Y.S.3d 923, 2016 NY Slip Op 01221, 2016 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1207, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-william-g-nyappdiv-2016.