In re Anthony C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Anthony C.

214 A.D.2d 345, 625 N.Y.S.2d 890, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3741

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

DecidedApril 6, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 214 A.D.2d 345 (In re Anthony C.) 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 Anthony C., 214 A.D.2d 345, 625 N.Y.S.2d 890, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3741 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Ruth Jane Zuckerman, J.), entered September 16, 1994, adjudicating respondent a juvenile delinquent and placing him with the Division for Youth for a period of 12 months, following a fact-finding determination, based upon respondent’s plea of guilty, that he committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of criminal possession of marihuana in the fifth degree, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

For the reasons stated in Matter of Deshone C. and Matter of Mark M. (207 AD2d 756), respondent’s claim that the juvenile delinquency petition was jurisdictionally defective is without merit. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin, Ross and Tom, JJ.

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

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Ruth Jane Zuckerman, J.), entered September 16, 1994, adjudicating respondent a juvenile delinquent and placing him with the Division for Youth for a period of 12 months, following a fact-finding determination, based upon respondent’s plea of guilty, that he committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of criminal possession of marihuana in the fifth degree, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

For the reasons stated in Matter of Deshone C. and Matter of Mark M. (207 AD2d 756), respondent’s claim that the juvenile delinquency petition was jurisdictionally defective is without merit. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin, Ross and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

214 A.D.2d 345, 625 N.Y.S.2d 890, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3741, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-anthony-c-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack