In re Charlete S.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Charlete S.

298 A.D.2d 182, 748 N.Y.S.2d 45, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9539

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

DecidedOctober 10, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 298 A.D.2d 182 (In re Charlete 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 Charlete S., 298 A.D.2d 182, 748 N.Y.S.2d 45, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9539 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Sheldon Rand, J.), entered on or about March 21, 2002, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that she committed acts, which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of robbery in the second degree (two counts), and placed her with the New York State Office of Children and Family Services, in a limited secure facility for a period of 18 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Appellant received ample latitude to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses at both the suppression and fact-finding hearings (see Delaware v Van Arsdall, 475 US 673, 678-679). There is no reasonable possibility that the result of either hearing would have been affected by any of the matters appellant sought to elicit.

The court’s placement of appellant was the least restrictive alternative consistent with her needs and the needs of the community (Matter of Katherine W., 62 NY2d 947).

We have considered and rejected appellant’s remaining contentions. Concur — Williams, P.J., Nardelli, Mazzarelli, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Sheldon Rand, J.), entered on or about March 21, 2002, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that she committed acts, which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of robbery in the second degree (two counts), and placed her with the New York State Office of Children and Family Services, in a limited secure facility for a period of 18 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Appellant received ample latitude to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses at both the suppression and fact-finding hearings (see Delaware v Van Arsdall, 475 US 673, 678-679). There is no reasonable possibility that the result of either hearing would have been affected by any of the matters appellant sought to elicit.

The court’s placement of appellant was the least restrictive alternative consistent with her needs and the needs of the community (Matter of Katherine W., 62 NY2d 947).

We have considered and rejected appellant’s remaining contentions. Concur — Williams, P.J., Nardelli, Mazzarelli, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

298 A.D.2d 182, 748 N.Y.S.2d 45, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9539, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-charlete-s-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack