In re Bobby Jo F.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Bobby Jo F.

2 A.D.3d 1472, 770 N.Y.S.2d 522, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14372

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

DecidedDecember 31, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 2 A.D.3d 1472 (In re Bobby Jo F.) 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 Bobby Jo F., 2 A.D.3d 1472, 770 N.Y.S.2d 522, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14372 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

[1473]*1473Appeal from an order of Family Court, Genesee County (Adams, J.), entered February 20, 2003, which adjudged that respondent is a juvenile delinquent and placed respondent in the custody of the Commissioner of Social Services of Genesee County for a period of 12 months.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Respondent appeals from an order adjudicating him a juvenile delinquent upon a finding that he committed an act that, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of forcible touching (Penal Law § 130.52). We reject his contention that the petition is facially deficient because the supporting depositions are not attached to it. “Family Court Act § 311.2 measures the sufficiency of a petition by the sum of its two parts: the verified petition . . . and any supporting depositions filed [, as here,] with the petition” (Matter of Neftali D., 85 NY2d 631, 635 [1995]; see Matter of Charles BB., 277 AD2d 756 [2000]).

Respondent also contends that the petition is facially deficient because it fails to allege lack of consent as an element of the offense (see Penal Law § 130.05). We disagree. The complainant’s statement, affirmed under penalty of perjury and on file with Family Court, alleges that the complainant is 16 years old, and thus she is deemed incapable of consent (see § 130.05 [3] [a]). We further reject respondent’s contention that the petition is facially deficient because it fails to allege with sufficient specificity when the alleged forcible touching occurred. Because the petition as amplified by the bill of particulars charges acts allegedly committed during a designated time period, it conforms to the requirements of Family Ct Act § 311.1 (3) (g) and thus is facially sufficient (see People v Morris, 61 NY2d 290, 294 [1984]).

Finally, we conclude that the evidence of lack of consent is legally sufficient (see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Petitioner established at the fact-finding hearing that the complainant is less than 17 years old (see Penal Law § 130.05 [2] [b]; [3] [a]). Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Wisner, Kehoe, Lawton and Hayes, JJ.

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

[1473]*1473Appeal from an order of Family Court, Genesee County (Adams, J.), entered February 20, 2003, which adjudged that respondent is a juvenile delinquent and placed respondent in the custody of the Commissioner of Social Services of Genesee County for a period of 12 months.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Respondent appeals from an order adjudicating him a juvenile delinquent upon a finding that he committed an act that, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of forcible touching (Penal Law § 130.52). We reject his contention that the petition is facially deficient because the supporting depositions are not attached to it. “Family Court Act § 311.2 measures the sufficiency of a petition by the sum of its two parts: the verified petition . . . and any supporting depositions filed [, as here,] with the petition” (Matter of Neftali D., 85 NY2d 631, 635 [1995]; see Matter of Charles BB., 277 AD2d 756 [2000]).

Respondent also contends that the petition is facially deficient because it fails to allege lack of consent as an element of the offense (see Penal Law § 130.05). We disagree. The complainant’s statement, affirmed under penalty of perjury and on file with Family Court, alleges that the complainant is 16 years old, and thus she is deemed incapable of consent (see § 130.05 [3] [a]). We further reject respondent’s contention that the petition is facially deficient because it fails to allege with sufficient specificity when the alleged forcible touching occurred. Because the petition as amplified by the bill of particulars charges acts allegedly committed during a designated time period, it conforms to the requirements of Family Ct Act § 311.1 (3) (g) and thus is facially sufficient (see People v Morris, 61 NY2d 290, 294 [1984]).

Finally, we conclude that the evidence of lack of consent is legally sufficient (see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Petitioner established at the fact-finding hearing that the complainant is less than 17 years old (see Penal Law § 130.05 [2] [b]; [3] [a]). Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Wisner, Kehoe, Lawton and Hayes, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 A.D.3d 1472, 770 N.Y.S.2d 522, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14372, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-bobby-jo-f-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack