Published on:

The minor respondent Kenroy, 14 years old was arrested and charged with various adult crimes. Pursuant to a petition filed on 11/16, he admitted the offense of reckless endangerment in the second degree, which is classified as a misdemeanor. The court ordered an investigative report be done, which is called an I&R. This report recommended an adjournment in contemplation of a dismissal for 6 months with a referral to prosocial programs. The report concluded that the respondent was at a low risk for recidivism. The victim requested restitution.

The presentment agency’s position is that the least restrictive course of action should be taken on the condition that the respondent pays restitution for medical costs. The attorney for the minor argued that the family could not afford restitution.

The purpose of the delinquency hearing is to ensure that the offense isn’t handled like a crime. These hearings are designed not to punish the defendant and address the causes of a delinquency through treatment. A standard of the juvenile justice system is not to treat the juvenile like an adult criminal. A family court adjudication is a civil proceeding to “supervise and guide troubled youth” (Matter of Quinton A. 49 NY2d 328, [1980], Green v. Montgomery 95 NY2d 693, 697-98.

Published on:

2017 NY Slip Op 02776

Decision

The defendant appeals portions of a divorce judgment that was decided in the Suffolk County Supreme Court. After a nonjury trial, the court said that 100% of Highland Terrace land be distributed to the plaintiff. The defendant should receive $250,000 for his interest in the residence. The plaintiff is to have sole ownership, title and possession of both land and residence. Both the plaintiff and the defendant should receive credit for 50% of the marital jewelry. Lastly, the plaintiff should receive a credit of $87,500 for her portion of a 1955 Jaguar that was sold.

Published on:

2017 Slip Op 01676

Decision

This is an appeal, filed in Queens County, by the plaintiff from an Order to Show Cause. The OSC granted the defendants application to restrain the plaintiff from transferring their minor child from a school in Queens to a school in Nassau County. The court granted a motion to stay enforcement of the TRO, pending a hearing.

Published on:

This private placement adoption action presents a number of intertwined legal issues that highlight the shortcomings of the private placement adoption statutes in New York State. The infant who is the subject of the case has now been in the home of the petitioners since February 21, 1998 without the benefit of a valid adoption consent from the parents or a currently valid pre-adoption certification order. The adoption agency that originally accepted custody of the child is no longer supervising this placement because it was not licensed in the state where the child was born. Additionally, the fees charges by the principals involved may not be entirely allowable under New York State law.

Background This petition was filed in Kings County Family Court by Mrs. M and Mr. M. on June 10, 1999 seeking adoption of a male child born 2/19/98 in Biddeford, Maine to Mrs. P. Mr. P is listed as the child’s father. The petition alleges that the child has been in the care of the petitioners since 2/21/98.

A review of documents filed supplementing the adoption petition indicates that while petitioners were found to be qualified adoptive parents pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 115-d by order of Kings County Surrogate’s Court dated 1/13/94, at the time this petition was filed in the Family Court on June 10, 1999 the petitioners were no longer certified as qualified adoptive parents. Surrogate’s Court extended the original certification order until 2/1/96 when it lapsed. Apparently, the Surrogate permitted Mr. and Mrs. M. to apply for “recertification” and issued a one-year order on January 5, 1998 that continued until January 5, 1999.

Contact Information