From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Diallo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
May 25, 1983
94 A.D.2d 976 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983)

Opinion

May 25, 1983

Appeal from the Erie County Family Court, Sedita, J.

Present — Hancock, Jr., J.P., Doerr, Denman, Green and Moule, JJ.


Order unanimously reversed, without costs, and petition dismissed. Memorandum: There is insufficient evidence to sustain the adjudication that respondent is a person in need of supervision ( Matter of David N., 92 A.D.2d 739; Matter of Freeman B., 93 A.D.2d 997). Neither petitioner (respondent's foster mother) nor the respondent testified. The only evidence concerning respondent's conduct was a partial admission from the Law Guardian that respondent has been guilty of curfew violations. This "admission" from one who has no personal knowledge of the facts cannot serve as legally competent evidence sufficient to prove the acts complained of beyond a reasonable doubt (see Family Ct Act, § 744, subds [a], [b]).


Summaries of

Matter of Diallo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
May 25, 1983
94 A.D.2d 976 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983)
Case details for

Matter of Diallo

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of DIALLO H., a Person Adjudged to be in Need of Supervision

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

Date published: May 25, 1983

Citations

94 A.D.2d 976 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983)

Citing Cases

Matter of Shari

Here, the "lawful authority" which was unable to control respondent was petitioner, the Ausable Valley…