Articles Posted in Uncategorized

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:

2012 New York Slip Op 50257

The question before the court is whether an admission and positive toxicology report for marijuana use is enough to establish neglect according to the Family Court Act 1012 (f)(1)(B) or Section 1046 (a)(iii). It is the contention of the Administrator of Children Services (ACS) that it is. The ACS claims that the mother’s use of marijuana establishes a case for parental wrongdoing and that a prima facie case isn’t defended by merely showing that the children weren’t harmed. The ACS said that dismissing the petition because of its failure to prevent any tangible evidence of harm is an error of law.

The mother contends that her infant’s positive toxicology for marijuana is in and of itself insufficient proof. It doesn’t prove that the child was harmed or put in any kind of danger. She claims that relying only on the report fails to make a causative connection to the surrounding circumstances.

Contact Information