Erie County Attorney, Petitioner-Respondent. v. << (2002)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

Matter of LAMEDH B., Respondent-Appellant. Erie County Attorney, Petitioner-Respondent.

Decided: November 15, 2002

Present PIGOTT, JR., P.J., PINE, WISNER, KEHOE, and GORSKI, JJ.

David C. Schopp, Law Guardian, The Legal Aid Bureau of Buffalo, Inc., Buffalo (Charles D. Halvorsen of Counsel), for Respondent Appellant. Frederick A. Wolf, County Attorney, Buffalo (Michael J. Liszewski of Counsel), for Petitioner-Respondent.

Family Court did not have authority under Family Ct Act § 353.6(1)(a) to order restitution of the victim's unreimbursed dental expenses (see Matter of Keith Z., 195 A.D.2d 729, 600 N.Y.S.2d 302). Contrary to petitioner's contention, “Family Court possesses only the power which is explicitly conferred on it by statute” (Matter of Martin v. Martin, 127 A.D.2d 266, 269, 514 N.Y.S.2d 413; see Matter of Borkowski v. Borkowski, 38 A.D.2d 752, 753, 330 N.Y.S.2d 106). We therefore modify the order by reducing the amount of restitution to $60.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously modified on the law by reducing the amount of restitution to $60 and as modified the order is affirmed without costs.

MEMORANDUM:

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.

Go To Learn About The Law