In re Dequon D.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Dequon D.

201 A.D.2d 275, 608 N.Y.S.2d 829, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 849

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

DecidedFebruary 3, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 201 A.D.2d 275 (In re Dequon D.) 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 Dequon D., 201 A.D.2d 275, 608 N.Y.S.2d 829, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 849 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Family [276]*276Court, New York County (Judith B. Sheindlin, J.), entered July 27, 1993, adjudicating appellant a juvenile delinquent and placing him with the Division for Youth for 12 months, upon a finding that he committed an act, which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crime of possession of imitation firearms, unanimously modified to the extent of reducing the time of placement to a period of six months and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

After receiving information that appellant possessed a weapon from an informant who was previously engaged in a hostile confrontation with him on a crowded subway platform, the limited pat-down search conducted by the officer was supported by reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, especially where the failure to immediately act would present a danger to the general public (see, People v Mitchell, 196 AD2d 401, 402, lv denied 82 NY2d 757). However, we find the period of placement to be excessive to the extent indicated. Concur— Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Wallach, Asch and Williams, JJ.

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

Order, Family [276]*276Court, New York County (Judith B. Sheindlin, J.), entered July 27, 1993, adjudicating appellant a juvenile delinquent and placing him with the Division for Youth for 12 months, upon a finding that he committed an act, which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crime of possession of imitation firearms, unanimously modified to the extent of reducing the time of placement to a period of six months and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

After receiving information that appellant possessed a weapon from an informant who was previously engaged in a hostile confrontation with him on a crowded subway platform, the limited pat-down search conducted by the officer was supported by reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, especially where the failure to immediately act would present a danger to the general public (see, People v Mitchell, 196 AD2d 401, 402, lv denied 82 NY2d 757). However, we find the period of placement to be excessive to the extent indicated. Concur— Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Wallach, Asch and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

201 A.D.2d 275, 608 N.Y.S.2d 829, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 849, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-dequon-d-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack