In re Crystal A.
Cases that cite this one
6 later published cases cite this decision.
- B., DANARYEE, MTR. OF (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- In re Danaryee B. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- In re Danaryee B. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- In re Andrew B. (NYC Family Court 2016)
- Pauline E. v. Renelder P. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
- In re Chelsea K. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Respondent was adjudicated, upon consent, a person in need of supervision and was placed on probation with the terms and conditions that she attend school, and that she abstain from alcohol and drug use and from associating with her abusive boyfriend. It is undisputed that respondent failed to comply with any of those terms and conditions, and thus Family Court properly placed respondent with an authorized agency pursuant to Family Ct Act § 756. Respondent contends that, before she entered her partial admission to the petition, the court should have advised her of the possible dispositions that it could impose. We reject that contention. Respondent was sufficiently advised of her right to remain silent under section 741 (a) of the Family Ct Act, and thus her partial admission to the petition is valid (see Matter of Tabitha LL., 87 NY2d 1009, 1010-1011 [1996]). Respondent failed to object when a witness read into the record letters written by the witness to respondent’s probation officer and thus failed to preserve for our review her contention that the court erred in admitting that testimony. In any event, “hearsay evidence is admissible at a dispositional hearing as long as it is material and relevant” (Matter of George A., 257 AD2d 620, 620-621 [1999]). Respondent’s remaining contentions also are raised for the first time on appeal and thus are not preserved for our review (see Ciesinski v Town of Aurora, 202 AD2d 984, 985 [1994]). Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Pine, Scudder, Gorski and Lawton, JJ.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.