In re Deshaun G.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Deshaun G.

88 A.D.3d 707, 930 N.Y.2d 881

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

DecidedOctober 4, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 88 A.D.3d 707 (In re Deshaun G.) 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 Deshaun G., 88 A.D.3d 707, 930 N.Y.2d 881 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

[708]*708The appeal from so much of the order of disposition as placed the appellant on probation for a period of 12 months has been rendered academic, as the period of placement has expired (see Matter of Javan P., 81 AD3d 833 [2011]).

The Family Court properly denied that branch of the appellant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence. The evidence presented at the suppression hearing established that there was a lawful basis to stop and detain the appellant as a suspected truant (see Education Law § 3213 [2]; Matter of Shannon B., 70 NY2d 458 [1987]; Matter of Kennedy T., 39 AD3d 408 [2007]; Matter of D’Angelo H., 184 AD2d 1039, 1040 [1992]; Matter of Devon B., 158 AD2d 519, 520 [1990]), and the pat down of the book bag which the appellant was holding was reasonable under the circumstances (see Matter of Bernard G., 247 AD2d 91, 93 [1998]; Matter of D’Angelo H., 184 AD2d at 1040; Matter of Mark Anthony G., 169 AD2d 89, 92-93 [1991]; Matter of Devon B., 158 AD2d at 520; Matter of Terrence G., 109 AD2d 440, 445-446 [1985]). Mastro, J.E, Florio, Eng and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

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

[708]*708The appeal from so much of the order of disposition as placed the appellant on probation for a period of 12 months has been rendered academic, as the period of placement has expired (see Matter of Javan P., 81 AD3d 833 [2011]).

The Family Court properly denied that branch of the appellant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence. The evidence presented at the suppression hearing established that there was a lawful basis to stop and detain the appellant as a suspected truant (see Education Law § 3213 [2]; Matter of Shannon B., 70 NY2d 458 [1987]; Matter of Kennedy T., 39 AD3d 408 [2007]; Matter of D’Angelo H., 184 AD2d 1039, 1040 [1992]; Matter of Devon B., 158 AD2d 519, 520 [1990]), and the pat down of the book bag which the appellant was holding was reasonable under the circumstances (see Matter of Bernard G., 247 AD2d 91, 93 [1998]; Matter of D’Angelo H., 184 AD2d at 1040; Matter of Mark Anthony G., 169 AD2d 89, 92-93 [1991]; Matter of Devon B., 158 AD2d at 520; Matter of Terrence G., 109 AD2d 440, 445-446 [1985]). Mastro, J.E, Florio, Eng and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 A.D.3d 707, 930 N.Y.2d 881, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-deshaun-g-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack