From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Jane

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
May 29, 1986
120 A.D.2d 906 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Opinion

May 29, 1986

Appeal from the Family Court of St. Lawrence County (Nelson, J.).


Respondent was alleged to be a person in need of supervision in a petition filed by her parents. The petition alleged one incident of running away to Kentucky with Mike Currier, together with three incidents of leaving home without permission. The petition also alleged that respondent was "beyond the control of petitioners, as she refuses to remain in their home and obey their rules". After a Law Guardian was appointed, respondent appeared in Family Court, and admitted that she "ran away" to Kentucky and left her parents' home without permission on two occasions. She was then adjudicated a person in need of supervision. After a dispositional hearing, Family Court placed respondent in the custody of the St. Lawrence County Department of Social Services for a period of 18 months. This appeal by respondent ensued.

Respondent's first contention is that since she testified before a Grand Jury concerning the incident wherein she ran away to Kentucky, she received transactional immunity (see, CPL 190.40) and this incident could not serve as a basis for her adjudication as a person in need of supervision. This argument should be rejected. Immunity such as that conferred by CPL 190.40 extends only to evidentiary use in criminal proceedings (see, CPL 50.10; Bellacosa, Practice Commentary, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 11A, CPL 50.10, p 307). Accordingly, we are unable to conclude that respondent had immunity in the context of the instant proceeding (cf. Matter of Anonymous Attorneys, 41 N.Y.2d 506).

Respondent next contends that her placement in the custody of the Department of Social Services was not supported by the evidence. This assertion is belied by the record, which reveals that Family Court's determination was appropriate and in all respects supported by the evidence. The order should, therefore, be affirmed.

Order affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P.J., Kane, Weiss, Yesawich, Jr., and Levine, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Jane

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
May 29, 1986
120 A.D.2d 906 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)
Case details for

Matter of Jane

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of MARY JANE HH., Alleged to be a Person in Need of…

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

Date published: May 29, 1986

Citations

120 A.D.2d 906 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Citing Cases

Investigation No. 04-730

Because of this distinction, we decline to extend the requirements of Family Court Act § 321.3 to PINS…

In the Matter of Investigation No. 04-730

Family Court Act article 3 and a PINS proceeding under Family Court Act article 7 (see, Matter of Jodel KK.…