Legal Opinion · Dissent

In re Keith H.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided February 22, 1993Published

1DissentMiller, J.

I cannot concur in the conclusion of the majority that a petition commencing a PINS proceeding need not be supported by legally sufficient nonhearsay allegations. I would thus affirm the order of the Family Court, essentially for the reasons stated by Judge Amodeo in his well-reasoned analysis of the due process violations present in this case (Matter of Keith H., 150 Misc 2d 470).

Family Court Act § 711 provides a crystal clear statement of legislative intent that the purpose of Family Court Act article 7 "is to provide a due process of law” in the consideration and disposition of PINS…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. In Re GAULTSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  2. Haley v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1948
  3. People v. PetraliaNew York Court of Appeals · 1984
  4. In re Jahron S.New York Court of Appeals · 1992
  5. People ex rel. Wayburn v. SchupfNew York Court of Appeals · 1976

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API