In re Dodson H.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Dodson H.

162 A.D.2d 310, 559 N.Y.S.2d 130, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7467

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

DecidedJune 21, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 162 A.D.2d 310 (In re Dodson 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 Dodson H., 162 A.D.2d 310, 559 N.Y.S.2d 130, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7467 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Harvey Sklaver, J.), entered July 25, 1989, which, after finding that appellant had committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted fourth degree criminal possession of a weapon, and the act of unlawful possession of a weapon by a person under 16 years of age, conditionally discharged him, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[311]*311The fact-finding court correctly determined that the prosecutor’s delay in disclosing the Rosario material did not substantially prejudice appellant’s right to a fair hearing (People v Rosario, 9 NY2d 286, cert denied 368 US 866; see, People v Martinez, 71 NY2d 937, 940; People v Ranghelle, 69 NY2d 56, 63). Moreover, the arresting ofiicer’s testimony sufficiently established appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Concur—Ross, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin and Wallach, JJ.

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

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Harvey Sklaver, J.), entered July 25, 1989, which, after finding that appellant had committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted fourth degree criminal possession of a weapon, and the act of unlawful possession of a weapon by a person under 16 years of age, conditionally discharged him, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[311]*311The fact-finding court correctly determined that the prosecutor’s delay in disclosing the Rosario material did not substantially prejudice appellant’s right to a fair hearing (People v Rosario, 9 NY2d 286, cert denied 368 US 866; see, People v Martinez, 71 NY2d 937, 940; People v Ranghelle, 69 NY2d 56, 63). Moreover, the arresting ofiicer’s testimony sufficiently established appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Concur—Ross, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin and Wallach, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

162 A.D.2d 310, 559 N.Y.S.2d 130, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7467, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-dodson-h-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack