From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Delmar

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Sep 30, 1994
207 A.D.2d 998 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

September 30, 1994

Appeal from the Oneida County Family Court, Morgan, J.

Present — Denman, P.J., Pine, Lawton, Wesley and Davis, JJ.


Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, admission vacated and matter remitted to Oneida County Family Court for further proceedings on the petition. Memorandum: In this juvenile delinquency proceeding, respondent appeals from two dispositional orders finding him guilty of violating the conditions of two previously imposed sentences of probation, revoking probation and placing him with the New York State Division for Youth. Respondent contends, inter alia, that the court failed to satisfy the requirements of sections 321.3 FCT and 360.3 FCT of the Family Court Act in eliciting respondent's admission to violating the terms of probation.

The court did not advise respondent of the contents of the petition (see, Family Ct Act § 360.3 [a]). Additionally, the court failed to ascertain, by means of a proper allocution, whether respondent admitted committing the specific act or acts alleged in the petition (see, Matter of William C., 140 A.D.2d 1004, 1005; Matter of Tina P., 135 A.D.2d 1105, 1106; cf., Matter of Edgar Q., 185 A.D.2d 432, 433). Similarly, the court did not conduct an adequate inquiry in eliciting respondent's waiver of a fact-finding hearing. The court informed respondent of his right to put the presenting agency to its proof, but did not tell respondent that he had a right to cross-examine the presenting agency's witnesses and put in a defense (see, Matter of Walker, 144 A.D.2d 306; Matter of Kim F., 109 A.D.2d 706, 708-709). Further, the court failed to ascertain whether respondent was aware of the possible dispositional orders (see, Matter of William C., supra; Matter of Tina P., supra; Matter of Kim F., supra). We conclude that respondent's waiver was not voluntary, knowing and intelligent. Thus, we reverse the orders and vacate respondent's admission, thereby restoring respondent to pre-allocution status to enable the court to comply with the statutory requirements.


Summaries of

Matter of Delmar

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Sep 30, 1994
207 A.D.2d 998 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

Matter of Delmar

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of DELMAR C., Appellant. ONEIDA COUNTY ATTORNEY, Respondent…

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

Date published: Sep 30, 1994

Citations

207 A.D.2d 998 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
617 N.Y.S.2d 611

Citing Cases

In re Tiffany MM.

Respondent thereafter admitted to Premo that she purposefully broke it. With such an admission constituting…

MATTER OF JOSEPH G.

" Where a respondent through his or her law guardian indicates that he or she wishes to enter an admission to…