From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Michael H

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
May 1, 1997
657 N.Y.S.2d 117 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

May 1, 1997

Appeal from the Family Court of Schoharie County (Hughes, J.).


After a fact-finding hearing, Family Court rendered a bench decision finding that respondent was a person in need of supervision. Subsequently, a dispositional order was entered suspending judgment for one year upon certain conditions. Respondent appeals.

Initially, we note that respondent's appeal from the order of disposition brings up for review the fact-finding order ( see, Matter of Herbert RR., 214 A.D.2d 891, 892, n 1; Matter of Herbert TT., 192 A.D.2d 916, 917). We further note that, although the dispositional order is moot because the suspended judgment has expired ( see, Matter of Demetrius X., 228 A.D.2d 804), the PINS adjudication is not moot as it may involve "`a possibility of collateral legal consequences'" ( Matter of Tabitha LL., 216 A.D.2d 651, 653, affd 87 N.Y.2d 1009; see, Matter of Erik P., 42 A.D.2d 908, 909).

Based on our review of the record, it is clear that the evidence adduced at the fact-finding hearing established beyond a reasonable doubt that respondent is a person in need of supervision.

Mikoll, J.P., Mercure, Crew III and Yesawich Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.


Summaries of

Matter of Michael H

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
May 1, 1997
657 N.Y.S.2d 117 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

Matter of Michael H

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of MICHAEL H., a Person Alleged to be in Need of…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: May 1, 1997

Citations

657 N.Y.S.2d 117 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
657 N.Y.S.2d 117

Citing Cases

Leslie v. Carol

The detention orders expired on their own terms, and any corrective measures which this Court might undertake…

In re Jessica GG.

We reject petitioner's contention that this particular argument is not properly before us because respondent…