In re Errol C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Errol C.

210 A.D.2d 403, 620 N.Y.S.2d 106

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

DecidedDecember 19, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 210 A.D.2d 403 (In re Errol C.) 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 Errol C., 210 A.D.2d 403, 620 N.Y.S.2d 106 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, the appeal is from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Hepner, J.), entered July 13, 1993, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court, entered April 29, 1993, made after a hearing, finding that the appellant committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of sodomy in the first degree, sexual abuse in the first degree, sexual misconduct, attempted sexual misconduct, assault in the third degree, and sexual abuse in the third degree, adjudged him to be a juvenile delinquent and placed him on probation for a period of two years.

Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, "the lack of a judicial determination as to the competency of the complainant to take an oath does not warrant dismissal of the petition” (Matter of Henry M., 194 AD2d 606, 607; Matter of Omar O., 208 AD2d 429). Accordingly, the Family Court properly denied the appellant’s motion to dismiss the petition since it was premised solely upon the fact that there had been no judicial determination regarding the complainant’s testimonial capacity. Lawrence, J. P., Santucci, Altman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

—In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, the appeal is from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Hepner, J.), entered July 13, 1993, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court, entered April 29, 1993, made after a hearing, finding that the appellant committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of sodomy in the first degree, sexual abuse in the first degree, sexual misconduct, attempted sexual misconduct, assault in the third degree, and sexual abuse in the third degree, adjudged him to be a juvenile delinquent and placed him on probation for a period of two years.

Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, "the lack of a judicial determination as to the competency of the complainant to take an oath does not warrant dismissal of the petition” (Matter of Henry M., 194 AD2d 606, 607; Matter of Omar O., 208 AD2d 429). Accordingly, the Family Court properly denied the appellant’s motion to dismiss the petition since it was premised solely upon the fact that there had been no judicial determination regarding the complainant’s testimonial capacity. Lawrence, J. P., Santucci, Altman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

210 A.D.2d 403, 620 N.Y.S.2d 106, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-errol-c-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack