Home/New York Court of Appeals/In re David W.

In re David W.

268 N.E.2d 642, 28 N.Y.2d 589, 319 N.Y.S.2d 845, 1971 N.Y. LEXIS 1558
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedFebruary 17, 1971
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 268 N.E.2d 642 (In re David W.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In re David W., 268 N.E.2d 642, 28 N.Y.2d 589, 319 N.Y.S.2d 845, 1971 N.Y. LEXIS 1558 (N.Y. 1971).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Although the facts set forth in the petition might have spelled .out the crime of assault—if committed by an adult — and, accordingly, might have supported a charge of juvenile delinquency against the 11-year-old respondent (Family Court Act, § 712, subd. [a]), the fact is that no .such charge is alleged. Indeed, the petition expressly charges the respondent with only a violation of harassment under section 240.25 of the Penal Law, and such a charge may not be the predicate for a juvenile delinquency proceeding.

Neither the petition nor the facts disclosed at the hearing sustain the finding of the Family Court that the respondent was ‘ ‘ a person in need of supervision ’ ’. As the Appellate Division observed, “ [t]his finding does not meet the test of the statute which mandates that the proof must show that the boy is 1 an habitual truant or who is incorrigible, ungovernable or habitually disobedient and beyond the lawful control of parent or other lawful authority ’. The record is silent on any misbehavior other than this single act of ‘ harassment ’. * * * there must be more than a single isolated incident to support a determination of ‘ need of supervision ’ ’ ’.

The order appealed from .should be affirmed, without costs.

Chief Judge Fuld and Judges Scileppi, Bergan, Breitel, Jasen and Gibson concur in Per Curiam opinion; Judge Burke taking no part.

Order affirmed.

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

Related

In re Kenny L.
50 A.D.3d 689 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
In re Latoya D.
224 A.D.2d 524 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
In re Theresa C.
222 A.D.2d 1107 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
In re Keith H.
188 A.D.2d 81 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)
In re Cassandra R.
155 Misc. 2d 756 (NYC Family Court, 1992)
Lacara v. Town of Islip
791 F. Supp. 69 (E.D. New York, 1992)
In re Charles M.
135 Misc. 2d 450 (NYC Family Court, 1987)
In re Denise M. W.
122 A.D.2d 556 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)
In re Christopher B.
122 Misc. 2d 377 (New York Family Court, 1984)
In re Clive W.
109 Misc. 2d 788 (NYC Family Court, 1981)
In re Kathie L.
100 Misc. 2d 173 (NYC Family Court, 1979)
McRedmond v. Wilson
533 F.2d 757 (Second Circuit, 1976)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
268 N.E.2d 642, 28 N.Y.2d 589, 319 N.Y.S.2d 845, 1971 N.Y. LEXIS 1558, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-david-w-ny-1971.