In re Damian G.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Damian G.

256 A.D.2d 174, 683 N.Y.S.2d 425, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13711

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 17, 1998·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Richard Ross, J.), entered on or about August 25, 1997, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that he had committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, and placed him in a limited secure facility with the Division for Youth for 18 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s findings were based on legally sufficient evidence and were not against the weight of the evidence despite the fact that no money was recovered from defendant upon his arrest after the sale of drugs to the undercover officer. We see no reason to disturb the court’s determinations concerning the reliability of identification testimony. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Wallach, Rubin and Williams, 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 (Richard Ross, J.), entered on or about August 25, 1997, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that he had committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, and placed him in a limited secure facility with the Division for Youth for 18 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s findings were based on legally sufficient evidence and were not against the weight of the evidence despite the fact that no money was recovered from defendant upon his arrest after the sale of drugs to the undercover officer. We see no reason to disturb the court’s determinations concerning the reliability of identification testimony. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Wallach, Rubin and Williams, JJ.

In re Damian G., 256 A.D.2d 174, 683 N.Y.S.2d 425, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13711 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

256 A.D.2d 174 (In re Damian G.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related