You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

In re Patrick E.

Citations: 216 A.D.2d 933; 629 N.Y.S.2d 701; 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7265

Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; June 9, 1995; New York; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

Order affirmed unanimously without costs. The court rejected claims that the respondent was denied a fair trial and due process due to Family Court's conduct. Although the court improperly considered evidence regarding the respondent's dismissal from a counseling program that was not presented during the hearing, this error was deemed harmless. Sufficient evidence existed to uphold the court's finding that the respondent violated probation terms by failing to report to his probation officer and not adhering to a court-imposed curfew. The case references Matter of Thomas RR, 112 AD2d 584, 585. The appeal originated from the Monroe County Family Court, presided over by Judge Bonadio. Justices Green, Fallon, Callahan, Doerr, and Davis were present.

Legal Issues Addressed

Fair Trial and Due Process in Family Court

Application: The court determined that the respondent was not denied a fair trial and due process despite claims to the contrary.

Reasoning: The court rejected claims that the respondent was denied a fair trial and due process due to Family Court's conduct.

Harmless Error Doctrine

Application: The court's consideration of evidence not presented during the hearing was deemed an error but was considered harmless in light of sufficient supporting evidence.

Reasoning: Although the court improperly considered evidence regarding the respondent's dismissal from a counseling program that was not presented during the hearing, this error was deemed harmless.

Sufficiency of Evidence in Probation Violation

Application: The court found that there was sufficient evidence to support the finding that the respondent violated probation terms.

Reasoning: Sufficient evidence existed to uphold the court's finding that the respondent violated probation terms by failing to report to his probation officer and not adhering to a court-imposed curfew.