In re Detrece H.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Detrece H.

158 A.D.2d 307, 550 N.Y.S.2d 713, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1084

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

DecidedFebruary 6, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 158 A.D.2d 307 (In re Detrece H.) 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 Detrece H., 158 A.D.2d 307, 550 N.Y.S.2d 713, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1084 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

A supporting deposition is not an unauthorized amendment of the petition in violation of Family Court Act § 311.5 where it merely restates the allegations of the petition and any appended supporting depositions in nonhearsay form (Matter [308]*308of Rodney J., 108 AD2d 307, 314). The first appended deposition stated all of the facts necessary to show that respondent had committed the crimes charged, albeit some of those facts were in hearsay form. Concerning the charge of criminal trespass in the third degree, petitioner notes that respondent did not ask the Family Court to dismiss it as a lesser included count of burglary in the third degree, concedes that it is, and agrees that its dismissal “at the appellate level is appropriate.” Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Milonas, Kassal, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

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

A supporting deposition is not an unauthorized amendment of the petition in violation of Family Court Act § 311.5 where it merely restates the allegations of the petition and any appended supporting depositions in nonhearsay form (Matter [308]*308of Rodney J., 108 AD2d 307, 314). The first appended deposition stated all of the facts necessary to show that respondent had committed the crimes charged, albeit some of those facts were in hearsay form. Concerning the charge of criminal trespass in the third degree, petitioner notes that respondent did not ask the Family Court to dismiss it as a lesser included count of burglary in the third degree, concedes that it is, and agrees that its dismissal “at the appellate level is appropriate.” Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Milonas, Kassal, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

158 A.D.2d 307, 550 N.Y.S.2d 713, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1084, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-detrece-h-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack