In re Charles O.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Charles O.

182 A.D.2d 1063, 586 N.Y.S.2d 777, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6902

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

DecidedApril 24, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 182 A.D.2d 1063 (In re Charles O.) 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 Charles O., 182 A.D.2d 1063, 586 N.Y.S.2d 777, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6902 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: The evidence was sufficient to support Family Court’s order adjudicating respondent a juvenile delin[1064]*1064quent. The court properly denied respondent’s post-hearing motion to dismiss in furtherance of justice or to reopen the proof. The additional information submitted by respondent was not newly discovered evidence. It could have been obtained earlier by due diligence and would not have altered the court’s decision in any event. In the absence of an appropriate objection or a motion to dismiss the petition before Family Court, respondent’s contention that he was denied his right to a speedy hearing pursuant to Family Court Act § 340.1 has not been properly preserved for our review (see, Matter of Ralph R, 163 AD2d 752, 753). (Appeal from Order of Wayne County Family Court, Parenti, J. — Juvenile Delinquency.) Present — Denman, P. J., Callahan, Green, Pine and Balio, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: The evidence was sufficient to support Family Court’s order adjudicating respondent a juvenile delin[1064]*1064quent. The court properly denied respondent’s post-hearing motion to dismiss in furtherance of justice or to reopen the proof. The additional information submitted by respondent was not newly discovered evidence. It could have been obtained earlier by due diligence and would not have altered the court’s decision in any event. In the absence of an appropriate objection or a motion to dismiss the petition before Family Court, respondent’s contention that he was denied his right to a speedy hearing pursuant to Family Court Act § 340.1 has not been properly preserved for our review (see, Matter of Ralph R, 163 AD2d 752, 753). (Appeal from Order of Wayne County Family Court, Parenti, J. — Juvenile Delinquency.) Present — Denman, P. J., Callahan, Green, Pine and Balio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

182 A.D.2d 1063, 586 N.Y.S.2d 777, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6902, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-charles-o-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack