In re Elio P.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Elio P.

36 A.D.3d 494, 831 N.Y.S.2d 112

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

DecidedJanuary 18, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 36 A.D.3d 494 (In re Elio P.) 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 Elio P., 36 A.D.3d 494, 831 N.Y.S.2d 112 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Mary E. Bednar, J.), entered on or about February 10, 2006, 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 attempted assault in the third degree, and placed him with the Office of Children and Family Services for a period of 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Even if we were to find that the court erred in excluding extrinsic evidence of an alleged prior inconsistent statement as to which appellant had cross-examined the victim, we would find the error to be harmless because there is no reasonable possibility that such error, if any, affected the court’s fact-finding determination (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]). Concur — Saxe, J.P., Marlow, Nardelli, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.

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

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Mary E. Bednar, J.), entered on or about February 10, 2006, 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 attempted assault in the third degree, and placed him with the Office of Children and Family Services for a period of 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Even if we were to find that the court erred in excluding extrinsic evidence of an alleged prior inconsistent statement as to which appellant had cross-examined the victim, we would find the error to be harmless because there is no reasonable possibility that such error, if any, affected the court’s fact-finding determination (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]). Concur — Saxe, J.P., Marlow, Nardelli, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

36 A.D.3d 494, 831 N.Y.S.2d 112, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-elio-p-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack