In re Herbert C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Herbert C.

39 A.D.2d 685, 332 N.Y.S.2d 109, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4562

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

DecidedMay 18, 1972

StatusPublished

This text of 39 A.D.2d 685 (In re Herbert 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 Herbert C., 39 A.D.2d 685, 332 N.Y.S.2d 109, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4562 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Final order of disposition of Family Court of the State of New York, New York County, entered November 22, 1971, adjudicating respondent-appellant a juvenile delinquent, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs and without disbursements, and the petition dismissed. Although the written charge against respondent-appellant accused him of having, from a position between two subway cars, snatched the purse of a passenger on the platform, it developed that the actual thief was one of two other persons at the same place. At most, therefore, respondent could have been an accomplice, assisting by blocking the ear door, or in some other undescribed way. There was no proof, however, except of his presence at the scene, a factor wholly consistent with innocence. The case was, therefore, not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Concur—■ Stevens, P. J., McGrivern, Markewich, Kupferman and McNally, JJ.

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

Final order of disposition of Family Court of the State of New York, New York County, entered November 22, 1971, adjudicating respondent-appellant a juvenile delinquent, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs and without disbursements, and the petition dismissed. Although the written charge against respondent-appellant accused him of having, from a position between two subway cars, snatched the purse of a passenger on the platform, it developed that the actual thief was one of two other persons at the same place. At most, therefore, respondent could have been an accomplice, assisting by blocking the ear door, or in some other undescribed way. There was no proof, however, except of his presence at the scene, a factor wholly consistent with innocence. The case was, therefore, not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Concur—■ Stevens, P. J., McGrivern, Markewich, Kupferman and McNally, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 A.D.2d 685, 332 N.Y.S.2d 109, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4562, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-herbert-c-nyappdiv-1972.