In re Charles R.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Charles R.

220 A.D.2d 513, 632 N.Y.S.2d 480, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9902

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

DecidedOctober 10, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 220 A.D.2d 513 (In re Charles 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 Charles R., 220 A.D.2d 513, 632 N.Y.S.2d 480, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9902 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, the appeal is from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Ambrosio, J.), dated May 23, 1994, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court, dated May 13, 1994, made after a hearing, finding that the appellant had committted acts, which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of murder in the second degree, robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree, attempted robbery in the first degree (two counts), attempted robbery in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the [514]*514third degree, adjudged him to be a juvenile delinquent and placed him with the Division for Youth for five years. The appeal brings up for review the fact-finding order dated May 13, 1994.

Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted (see, Anders v California, 386 US 738; People v Paige, 54 AD2d 631; cf., People v Gonzalez, 47 NY2d 606). Thompson, J. P., Copertino, Hart and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

—In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, the appeal is from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Ambrosio, J.), dated May 23, 1994, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court, dated May 13, 1994, made after a hearing, finding that the appellant had committted acts, which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of murder in the second degree, robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree, attempted robbery in the first degree (two counts), attempted robbery in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the [514]*514third degree, adjudged him to be a juvenile delinquent and placed him with the Division for Youth for five years. The appeal brings up for review the fact-finding order dated May 13, 1994.

Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted (see, Anders v California, 386 US 738; People v Paige, 54 AD2d 631; cf., People v Gonzalez, 47 NY2d 606). Thompson, J. P., Copertino, Hart and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

220 A.D.2d 513, 632 N.Y.S.2d 480, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9902, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-charles-r-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack