In re Davaun M.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Davaun M.

44 A.D.3d 420, 843 N.Y.S.2d 68

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

DecidedOctober 11, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 44 A.D.3d 420 (In re Davaun 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 Davaun M., 44 A.D.3d 420, 843 N.Y.S.2d 68 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Nelida Malave-Gonzalez, J.), entered on or about January 24, 2007, 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 resisting arrest, and placed him on probation for a period of 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s finding was based on legally sufficient evidence. It is “not necessary that [a] defendant be specifically informed that he was to be arrested in order for a resisting arrest conviction to stand; it is sufficient that such knowledge was inferable from the surrounding facts and circumstances” (.People v Gray, 189 AD2d 922, 923 [1993], lv denied 81 NY2d 886 [1993]). The evidence established that appellant was being placed under arrest for obstructing governmental administration, which he had committed by attempting to assault a school safety agent, that appellant knew he was being arrested, and that his flailing and kicking was a deliberate act to resist arrest. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Friedman, Sullivan and Nardelli, JJ.

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

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Nelida Malave-Gonzalez, J.), entered on or about January 24, 2007, 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 resisting arrest, and placed him on probation for a period of 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s finding was based on legally sufficient evidence. It is “not necessary that [a] defendant be specifically informed that he was to be arrested in order for a resisting arrest conviction to stand; it is sufficient that such knowledge was inferable from the surrounding facts and circumstances” (.People v Gray, 189 AD2d 922, 923 [1993], lv denied 81 NY2d 886 [1993]). The evidence established that appellant was being placed under arrest for obstructing governmental administration, which he had committed by attempting to assault a school safety agent, that appellant knew he was being arrested, and that his flailing and kicking was a deliberate act to resist arrest. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Friedman, Sullivan and Nardelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

44 A.D.3d 420, 843 N.Y.S.2d 68, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-davaun-m-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack