In re Abraham S.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Abraham S.

18 A.D.3d 212, 793 N.Y.S.2d 763, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4766

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

DecidedMay 3, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 18 A.D.3d 212 (In re Abraham S.) 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 S., 18 A.D.3d 212, 793 N.Y.S.2d 763, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4766 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order of disposi[213]*213tion, Family Court, New York County (Mary E. Bednar, J.), entered on or about April 14, 2004, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that he committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third and seventh degrees, and placed him on probation for a period of up to 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The verdict was based upon legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). There is no basis for disturbing the court’s determinations concerning credibility and identification. The evidence warranted the conclusion that appellant possessed drugs with intent to sell them. Concur—Tom, J.P., Saxe, Friedman, Marlow and Catterson, JJ.

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

— Order of disposi[213]*213tion, Family Court, New York County (Mary E. Bednar, J.), entered on or about April 14, 2004, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that he committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third and seventh degrees, and placed him on probation for a period of up to 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The verdict was based upon legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). There is no basis for disturbing the court’s determinations concerning credibility and identification. The evidence warranted the conclusion that appellant possessed drugs with intent to sell them. Concur—Tom, J.P., Saxe, Friedman, Marlow and Catterson, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 A.D.3d 212, 793 N.Y.S.2d 763, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4766, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-abraham-s-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack