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

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

DecidedMarch 19, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 5 A.D.3d 1051 (In re Carlos S.) 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 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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 A.D.3d 1051, 773 N.Y.S.2d 653, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3109, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-carlos-s-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack