In re Abraham M.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Abraham M.

17 A.D.3d 198, 792 N.Y.S.2d 328, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3952

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

DecidedApril 14, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 17 A.D.3d 198 (In re Abraham M.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Abraham M., 17 A.D.3d 198, 792 N.Y.S.2d 328, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3952 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Harold J. Lynch, J.), entered on or about April 6, 2004, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that he committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and placed him with the Office of Children and Family Services for a period of 18 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly denied appellant’s suppression motion. There is no basis for disturbing the court’s credibility determinations, which are supported by the record (see People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761 [1977]). We find nothing implausible about the officer’s testimony that appellant exposed a quantity of drugs in his hand while in the process of making a sale. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Friedman, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Harold J. Lynch, J.), entered on or about April 6, 2004, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that he committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and placed him with the Office of Children and Family Services for a period of 18 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly denied appellant’s suppression motion. There is no basis for disturbing the court’s credibility determinations, which are supported by the record (see People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761 [1977]). We find nothing implausible about the officer’s testimony that appellant exposed a quantity of drugs in his hand while in the process of making a sale. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Friedman, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 A.D.3d 198, 792 N.Y.S.2d 328, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3952, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-abraham-m-nyappdiv-2005.