 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1
.
OPINION
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
FAMILY COURT FAMILY COURT ACT MATTER APPELLANT MEMORANDUM ADMISSION AD2D TABITHA SUPERVISION COSTS PROCEEDING PROVISION STATUTORY JUDGE REVIEW INVALID JACQUELINE L49 AD2D RICKEY L58 AD2D CHRISTOPHER L54 AD2D CHIEF JUDGE KAYE JUDGES SIMONS TITONE BELLACOSA SMITH LEVINE CIPARICK CONCUR |
IN THE MATTER OF TABITHA "LL", ALLEGED TO BE A PERSON IN NEED OF SUPERVISION.
RALPH CORBO, AS PRINCIPAL OF TICONDEROGA HIGH SCHOOL, RESPONDENT, TABITHA
"LL", APPELLANT.
87 N.Y.2d 1009, 666 N.E.2d 171, 643 N.Y.S.2d 466 (1996).
March 21, 1996
3 No. 50(1996 NY Int. 43)
Decided March 21, 1996
_________________________________________________________________
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before
publication in the New York Reports.
Paul J. Connolly, for Appellant.
Richard B. Meyer, for Respondent.
MEMORANDUM:
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without
costs.
Respondent was adjudicated a person in need of supervision (PINS) in
a Family Court Act article 7 proceeding. At her arraignment,
respondent was assigned counsel and initially advised of her right to
remain silent, as required by Family Court Act § 74l. However, she was
not accorded the procedural safeguards embodied in Family Court Act
321.3, the article governing juvenile delinquency (JD) proceedings.
She argues on this appeal that Family Court's failure to follow these
procedures before she entered an admission on the charges constitutes
reversible error. We disagree.
Article 3 explicitly requires that the Family Court advise a
respondent that by making an admission he or she is waiving the right
to a fact-finding hearing, and ascertain that respondent is aware of
the possible specific dispositional orders (Family Court Act
321.3(l)). There is no comparable provision in Article 7. There is no
legislative history or rule of statutory construction that would
permit us to read into Article 7 an express provision of Article
3.(n 1) As respondent was sufficiently advised of her rights to the
extent required under Family Court Act § 74l, she received all the
protection required by the statute. Respondent's constitutional
arguments are unpreserved for our review. Under the circumstances, her
admissions were not invalid.
F O O T N O T E
SNIPPETS:
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
