Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: JESSICA GG., a Person in Need of Supervision. Tim Card, as Juvenile Probation Officer of the Delaware County Probation Department, Respondent; Jessica GG., Appellant.
Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Delaware County (Becker, J.), entered June 22, 2004, which granted petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct. Act article 7, to revoke a prior order of probation and placed respondent in the custody of the Delaware County Department of Social Services for a period of one year.
Respondent was adjudicated a person in need of supervision and placed on probation for one year upon certain terms and conditions. A violation petition was thereafter filed. At respondent's initial appearance on the violation petition, the Law Guardian indicated that respondent was prepared to make certain admissions to the petition and ultimately did so. At no time during this hearing, however, was respondent advised of the right to remain silent (see Family Ct. Act § 741[a] ). While Family Court informed her that she had the right, but was not required, to testify at a fact-finding hearing, this admonition is not equivalent to an advisement of the right to remain silent. This failure constitutes reversible error and compels us to vacate the resulting order of disposition (see Matter of Ashley A., 296 A.D.2d 627, 628, 745 N.Y.S.2d 121 [2002]; Matter of Jodi VV., 295 A.D.2d 659, 660, 743 N.Y.S.2d 195 [2002]; Matter of Shaun U., 288 A.D.2d 708, 709, 732 N.Y.S.2d 483 [2001] ).1 As a result, we need not address respondent's remaining contentions.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs, and matter remitted to the Family Court of Delaware County for further proceedings not inconsistent with this Court's decision.
FOOTNOTES
1. We reject petitioner's contention that this particular argument is not properly before us because respondent did not appeal from the fact-finding order. Respondent's appeal from the dispositional order brings up for review the fact-finding order (see Family Ct. Act § 1112[a]; see e.g. Matter of Michael H., 239 A.D.2d 618, 619, 657 N.Y.S.2d 117 [1997]; Matter of Anthony SS., 197 A.D.2d 767, 768, 604 N.Y.S.2d 826 [1993] ).
CARPINELLO, J.
CARDONA, P.J., MERCURE, CREW III and MUGGLIN, JJ., concur.
Thank you for your feedback!
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.
Decided: June 09, 2005
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)