In re Durrell G.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Durrell G.

29 A.D.3d 451, 814 N.Y.S.2d 525

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

DecidedMay 23, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 29 A.D.3d 451 (In re Durrell 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 Durrell G., 29 A.D.3d 451, 814 N.Y.S.2d 525 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Sidney Gribetz, J.), entered on or about December 21, 2004, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that he committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of assault in the second degree, and placed him on probation until March 30, 2006, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Even if we were to find error in the court’s determination not to extend the time for service of an alibi notice, or in its curtailment of the redirect examination of appellant’s witness, we would find either or both of these errors to be harmless in view of the overwhelming evidence of appellant’s guilt (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Marlow and Malone, JJ.

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

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Sidney Gribetz, J.), entered on or about December 21, 2004, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that he committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of assault in the second degree, and placed him on probation until March 30, 2006, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Even if we were to find error in the court’s determination not to extend the time for service of an alibi notice, or in its curtailment of the redirect examination of appellant’s witness, we would find either or both of these errors to be harmless in view of the overwhelming evidence of appellant’s guilt (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Marlow and Malone, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 A.D.3d 451, 814 N.Y.S.2d 525, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-durrell-g-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack