In re Carlos S.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Carlos S.

5 A.D.3d 1051, 773 N.Y.S.2d 653, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3109

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 19, 2004·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Oneida County [1052]*1052(Bernadette T. Romano, J.), entered January 2, 2003. The order adjudged that respondent is a juvenile delinquent and placed him on probation for one year.

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 of disposition that adjudged him a juvenile delinquent and placed him on probation for one year. Contrary to the contention of respondent, Family Court did not assume a prosecutorial role in the proceedings, in violation of his due process rights. Rather, the court fulfilled its “vital role in clarifying confusing testimony and facilitating the orderly and expeditious progress of the trial” (People v Yut Wai Tom, 53 NY2d 44, 57 [1981]). Present— Wisner, J.P., Hurlbutt, Kehoe, Lawton and Hayes, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Oneida County [1052]*1052(Bernadette T. Romano, J.), entered January 2, 2003. The order adjudged that respondent is a juvenile delinquent and placed him on probation for one year.

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 of disposition that adjudged him a juvenile delinquent and placed him on probation for one year. Contrary to the contention of respondent, Family Court did not assume a prosecutorial role in the proceedings, in violation of his due process rights. Rather, the court fulfilled its “vital role in clarifying confusing testimony and facilitating the orderly and expeditious progress of the trial” (People v Yut Wai Tom, 53 NY2d 44, 57 [1981]). Present— Wisner, J.P., Hurlbutt, Kehoe, Lawton and Hayes, JJ.

In re Carlos S., 5 A.D.3d 1051, 773 N.Y.S.2d 653, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3109 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

5 A.D.3d 1051 (In re Carlos S.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related