In re Elisha T.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Elisha T.

249 A.D.2d 247, 671 N.Y.S.2d 652, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4785

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

DecidedApril 30, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 249 A.D.2d 247 (In re Elisha T.) 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 Elisha T., 249 A.D.2d 247, 671 N.Y.S.2d 652, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4785 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Cira Martinez, J.), entered on or about July 29, 1997, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that he had committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crime of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and placed him with the Division for Youth for a period of 18 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s findings were based on legally sufficient evidence and were not against the weight of the evidence. There was ample evidence of appellant’s purposeful participation in the sale, including evidence that he directed several people to another individual who then exchanged drugs for money, that, upon the undercover officer’s approach, appellant asked him “how many” he wanted, and that appellant then directed the officer to the other man, standing two feet away, who completed the transaction (see, People v Abdul-Aziz, 216 AD2d 77, lv denied 86 NY2d 788). We see no reason to disturb the court’s credibility determinations.

The court’s restriction on cross-examination of the undercover officer was a proper exercise of discretion (see, People v Schwartzman, 24 NY2d 241, 244, cert denied 396 US 846). Concur — Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Nardelli, Tom and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Cira Martinez, J.), entered on or about July 29, 1997, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that he had committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crime of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and placed him with the Division for Youth for a period of 18 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s findings were based on legally sufficient evidence and were not against the weight of the evidence. There was ample evidence of appellant’s purposeful participation in the sale, including evidence that he directed several people to another individual who then exchanged drugs for money, that, upon the undercover officer’s approach, appellant asked him “how many” he wanted, and that appellant then directed the officer to the other man, standing two feet away, who completed the transaction (see, People v Abdul-Aziz, 216 AD2d 77, lv denied 86 NY2d 788). We see no reason to disturb the court’s credibility determinations.

The court’s restriction on cross-examination of the undercover officer was a proper exercise of discretion (see, People v Schwartzman, 24 NY2d 241, 244, cert denied 396 US 846). Concur — Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Nardelli, Tom and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D.2d 247, 671 N.Y.S.2d 652, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4785, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-elisha-t-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack