In re Curtis M.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Curtis M.

24 A.D.3d 120, 804 N.Y.S.2d 249

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

DecidedDecember 1, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 24 A.D.3d 120 (In re Curtis M.) 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 Curtis M., 24 A.D.3d 120, 804 N.Y.S.2d 249 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Harold J. Lynch, J.), entered on or about September 14, 2004, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that he had committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and placed him on probation for a period of two years, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s finding was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis for disturbing the court’s determinations concerning credibility (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]). Concur— Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, Nardelli, Sweeny and McGuire, 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 J. Lynch, J.), entered on or about September 14, 2004, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that he had committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and placed him on probation for a period of two years, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s finding was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis for disturbing the court’s determinations concerning credibility (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]). Concur— Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, Nardelli, Sweeny and McGuire, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 A.D.3d 120, 804 N.Y.S.2d 249, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-curtis-m-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack