In re Alejandro R.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Alejandro R.

17 A.D.3d 282, 792 N.Y.S.2d 901, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4463

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

DecidedApril 28, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 17 A.D.3d 282 (In re Alejandro R.) 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 Alejandro R., 17 A.D.3d 282, 792 N.Y.S.2d 901, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4463 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Harold J. Lynch, J.), entered on or about January 22, 2004, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that he had committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of robbery in the second degree, and placed him on probation until his 18th birthday, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s finding was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There was extensive evidence supporting the inference that appellant [283]*283intentionally aided his companion in forcibly stealing the victim’s property, including, among other things, appellant’s statement to the police (see Matter of Juan J., 81 NY2d 739 [1992]; People v Allah, 71 NY2d 830 [1988]). Concur—Buckley, P.J., Sullivan, Ellerin, Williams 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 January 22, 2004, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that he had committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of robbery in the second degree, and placed him on probation until his 18th birthday, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s finding was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There was extensive evidence supporting the inference that appellant [283]*283intentionally aided his companion in forcibly stealing the victim’s property, including, among other things, appellant’s statement to the police (see Matter of Juan J., 81 NY2d 739 [1992]; People v Allah, 71 NY2d 830 [1988]). Concur—Buckley, P.J., Sullivan, Ellerin, Williams and Catterson, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 A.D.3d 282, 792 N.Y.S.2d 901, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4463, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-alejandro-r-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack