In re Floyd P.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Floyd P.

200 A.D.2d 375, 608 N.Y.S.2d 72, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 86

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

DecidedJanuary 6, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 200 A.D.2d 375 (In re Floyd 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 Floyd P., 200 A.D.2d 375, 608 N.Y.S.2d 72, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 86 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Family Court, New York County (Ruth Zuckerman, J.), entered October 26, 1992, adjudicating respondent a juvenile delinquent upon a finding that he committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of grand larceny in the fourth degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree and resisting arrest, and placing him in restrictive placement with the Division for Youth, Title III, for a period of three years, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The presentment agency’s request for an adjournment was supported by "good cause” as required by Family Court Act § 340.1 (4), namely, the difficulties encountered by the presentment agency in obtaining proper proof of one of respondent’s prior felony adjudications due to the nonexistence of a disposi[376]*376tional order in that matter and the retirement of the Judge who had presided over it. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.

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

—Order, Family Court, New York County (Ruth Zuckerman, J.), entered October 26, 1992, adjudicating respondent a juvenile delinquent upon a finding that he committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of grand larceny in the fourth degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree and resisting arrest, and placing him in restrictive placement with the Division for Youth, Title III, for a period of three years, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The presentment agency’s request for an adjournment was supported by "good cause” as required by Family Court Act § 340.1 (4), namely, the difficulties encountered by the presentment agency in obtaining proper proof of one of respondent’s prior felony adjudications due to the nonexistence of a disposi[376]*376tional order in that matter and the retirement of the Judge who had presided over it. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

200 A.D.2d 375, 608 N.Y.S.2d 72, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 86, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-floyd-p-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack