In re Calvin R.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Calvin R.

291 A.D.2d 346, 739 N.Y.S.2d 663, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2141

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

DecidedFebruary 28, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 291 A.D.2d 346 (In re Calvin 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 Calvin R., 291 A.D.2d 346, 739 N.Y.S.2d 663, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2141 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Sheldon Rand, J.), entered on or about October 16, 2000, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that he committed an act that, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crime of criminal possession of marihuana in the fifth degree, and imposed a conditional discharge for a period of one year, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[347]*347The court’s finding was based on legally sufficient evidence since the officer’s observations warranted the conclusion that appellant was in possession of marihuana in a public place (Penal Law § 221.10; cf., Matter of Camille H., 215 AD2d 143). There is no basis upon which to disturb the court’s determinations concerning credibility. The inference is inescapable that the bag of marihuana found on appellant was the same object observed by an officer moments before appellant’s arrest. Furthermore, the building lobby clearly constituted a “public place” for purposes of Penal Law § 240.00 (1). Concur— Williams, J.P., Lerner, Buckley, Friedman and Marlow, 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 (Sheldon Rand, J.), entered on or about October 16, 2000, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that he committed an act that, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crime of criminal possession of marihuana in the fifth degree, and imposed a conditional discharge for a period of one year, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[347]*347The court’s finding was based on legally sufficient evidence since the officer’s observations warranted the conclusion that appellant was in possession of marihuana in a public place (Penal Law § 221.10; cf., Matter of Camille H., 215 AD2d 143). There is no basis upon which to disturb the court’s determinations concerning credibility. The inference is inescapable that the bag of marihuana found on appellant was the same object observed by an officer moments before appellant’s arrest. Furthermore, the building lobby clearly constituted a “public place” for purposes of Penal Law § 240.00 (1). Concur— Williams, J.P., Lerner, Buckley, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

291 A.D.2d 346, 739 N.Y.S.2d 663, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2141, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-calvin-r-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack