In re Gordon F.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Gordon F.

54 A.D.2d 650, 387 N.Y.S.2d 868, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14159

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

DecidedOctober 21, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 54 A.D.2d 650 (In re Gordon F.) 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 Gordon F., 54 A.D.2d 650, 387 N.Y.S.2d 868, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14159 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Family Court, Bronx County, entered March 31, 1976, adjudicating appellant a juvenile delinquent and placing him with the New York State Division for Youth, Title III, unanimously affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. Appellant contends that the fact-finding hearing failed to prove that the "Gordon F.” named in the complaining petition and the testimony of the witnesses was the same "Gordon F.” who was present in court as the accused. While identity of person may not be presumed in criminal cases from identity of name alone, it may be presumed when coupled with other "fortifying circumstances” (People v Reese, 258 NY 89, 96). The complainant here knew "Gordon F.” from school and he also recalled his assaulting a friend two years before. Additionally, the complainant’s brother testified that he overheard "Gordon F.” ask the complainant to accompany him upstairs on the date of the incident. These statements of familiarity, made in the presence of an accused who had introduced himself on three occasions during the hearing as "Gordon F.”, constituted fortifying evidence of a connective link between the "Gordon F.” who committed the acts complained of and the "Gordon F.” who sat as the accused in the hearing. Concur—Murphy, J. P., Lupiano, Silverman, Nunez and Lynch, JJ.

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

Order, Family Court, Bronx County, entered March 31, 1976, adjudicating appellant a juvenile delinquent and placing him with the New York State Division for Youth, Title III, unanimously affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. Appellant contends that the fact-finding hearing failed to prove that the "Gordon F.” named in the complaining petition and the testimony of the witnesses was the same "Gordon F.” who was present in court as the accused. While identity of person may not be presumed in criminal cases from identity of name alone, it may be presumed when coupled with other "fortifying circumstances” (People v Reese, 258 NY 89, 96). The complainant here knew "Gordon F.” from school and he also recalled his assaulting a friend two years before. Additionally, the complainant’s brother testified that he overheard "Gordon F.” ask the complainant to accompany him upstairs on the date of the incident. These statements of familiarity, made in the presence of an accused who had introduced himself on three occasions during the hearing as "Gordon F.”, constituted fortifying evidence of a connective link between the "Gordon F.” who committed the acts complained of and the "Gordon F.” who sat as the accused in the hearing. Concur—Murphy, J. P., Lupiano, Silverman, Nunez and Lynch, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 A.D.2d 650, 387 N.Y.S.2d 868, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14159, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-gordon-f-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack