In re Carlos V.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Carlos V.

55 A.D.2d 958, 391 N.Y.S.2d 162, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10259

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

DecidedJanuary 31, 1977

StatusPublished

This text of 55 A.D.2d 958 (In re Carlos V.) 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 V., 55 A.D.2d 958, 391 N.Y.S.2d 162, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10259 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Kings County, dated May 23, 1975, which, upon a determination after a fact-finding hearing that appellant had committed acts which, if done by an adult, would have constituted a crime, adjudged him to be a juvenile delinquent and placed him on probation for a period of six months. Order reversed, on the facts, without costs or disbursements, and petition dismissed. In our opinion, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in taking sworn testimony from the infant witness (see Wheeler v United States, 159 US 523, 524-525). However, it is our view that the evidence failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant had committed acts which, if done by an adult, would have constituted the crime of menacing, as that crime is defined in section 120.15 of the Penal Law. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Cohalan and Damiani, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Kings County, dated May 23, 1975, which, upon a determination after a fact-finding hearing that appellant had committed acts which, if done by an adult, would have constituted a crime, adjudged him to be a juvenile delinquent and placed him on probation for a period of six months. Order reversed, on the facts, without costs or disbursements, and petition dismissed. In our opinion, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in taking sworn testimony from the infant witness (see Wheeler v United States, 159 US 523, 524-525). However, it is our view that the evidence failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant had committed acts which, if done by an adult, would have constituted the crime of menacing, as that crime is defined in section 120.15 of the Penal Law. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Cohalan and Damiani, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 A.D.2d 958, 391 N.Y.S.2d 162, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10259, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-carlos-v-nyappdiv-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack