In re Collie W.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Collie W.

309 A.D.2d 611, 765 N.Y.S.2d 611, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10690

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

DecidedOctober 16, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 309 A.D.2d 611 (In re Collie W.) 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 Collie W., 309 A.D.2d 611, 765 N.Y.S.2d 611, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10690 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Harold Lynch, J.), entered on or about July 5, 2001, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon his admission that he committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of burglary in the third degree, and placed him with the Office of Children and Family Services for a period of up to 18 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The Assistant Corporation Counsel who signed the petition [612]*612was an “appropriate presentment attorney” within the contemplation of Family Court Act § 311.1 (3) (k) because, while awaiting bar admission, he was performing the responsibilities of an Assistant Corporation Counsel under a program approved by this Court pursuant to Judiciary Law § 478.

Neither the petition nor appellant’s factual allocution made in connection with his admission was defective for failure to specify the crime appellant intended to commit when he unlawfully entered the victim’s premises. When an adult is charged with burglary, the prosecution is not obligated to plead or prove that a specific crime was intended (People v Mackey, 49 NY2d 274, 278-281 [1980]), and there is no reason to reach a different result in juvenile delinquency proceedings.

We have considered and rejected appellant’s remaining claims. Concur — Andrias, J.P., Ellerin, Williams, Lerner and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Harold Lynch, J.), entered on or about July 5, 2001, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon his admission that he committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of burglary in the third degree, and placed him with the Office of Children and Family Services for a period of up to 18 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The Assistant Corporation Counsel who signed the petition [612]*612was an “appropriate presentment attorney” within the contemplation of Family Court Act § 311.1 (3) (k) because, while awaiting bar admission, he was performing the responsibilities of an Assistant Corporation Counsel under a program approved by this Court pursuant to Judiciary Law § 478.

Neither the petition nor appellant’s factual allocution made in connection with his admission was defective for failure to specify the crime appellant intended to commit when he unlawfully entered the victim’s premises. When an adult is charged with burglary, the prosecution is not obligated to plead or prove that a specific crime was intended (People v Mackey, 49 NY2d 274, 278-281 [1980]), and there is no reason to reach a different result in juvenile delinquency proceedings.

We have considered and rejected appellant’s remaining claims. Concur — Andrias, J.P., Ellerin, Williams, Lerner and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

309 A.D.2d 611, 765 N.Y.S.2d 611, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10690, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-collie-w-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack