In re Amanda L.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Amanda L.

30 A.D.3d 180, 815 N.Y.S.2d 822

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

DecidedJune 8, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 30 A.D.3d 180 (In re Amanda L.) 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 Amanda L., 30 A.D.3d 180, 815 N.Y.S.2d 822 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Monica Drinane, J), entered on or about July 25, 2005, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that she had committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute two counts of assault in the third degree and two counts of menacing in the third degree, and placed her on probation for a period of 12 months, held in abeyance, and the matter remanded for a hearing as to whether the identification of appellant by a witness was confirmatory.

A Rodriguez hearing (People v Rodriguez, 79 NY2d 445 [1992]) is necessary to determine whether the witness in question was sufficiently familiar with appellant so as to exempt her out-of-court identification from the CPL 710.30 (1) (b) notice requirement. Given the procedural circumstances, the parties [181]*181did not have a full opportunity to litigate this issue. Concur— Buckley, RJ., Mazzarelli, Saxe, Williams and McGuire, JJ.

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

Appeal from order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Monica Drinane, J), entered on or about July 25, 2005, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that she had committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute two counts of assault in the third degree and two counts of menacing in the third degree, and placed her on probation for a period of 12 months, held in abeyance, and the matter remanded for a hearing as to whether the identification of appellant by a witness was confirmatory.

A Rodriguez hearing (People v Rodriguez, 79 NY2d 445 [1992]) is necessary to determine whether the witness in question was sufficiently familiar with appellant so as to exempt her out-of-court identification from the CPL 710.30 (1) (b) notice requirement. Given the procedural circumstances, the parties [181]*181did not have a full opportunity to litigate this issue. Concur— Buckley, RJ., Mazzarelli, Saxe, Williams and McGuire, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 A.D.3d 180, 815 N.Y.S.2d 822, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-amanda-l-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack