In re Hopeton S.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Hopeton S.

265 A.D.2d 188, 696 N.Y.S.2d 807, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10159

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

DecidedOctober 12, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 265 A.D.2d 188 (In re Hopeton S.) 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 Hopeton S., 265 A.D.2d 188, 696 N.Y.S.2d 807, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10159 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Mary Bednar, J.), entered on or about September 22, 1998, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that he committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of petit larceny and criminal possession of stolen property, and placed him under the supervision of the Department of Probation for a period of 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s finding was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (People v Bleak[189]*189ley, 69 NY2d 490). Upon a fair reading of the record, we find that there was ample evidence from which the court could have inferred appellant’s guilt. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Nardelli, Williams, Rubin and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Mary Bednar, J.), entered on or about September 22, 1998, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that he committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of petit larceny and criminal possession of stolen property, and placed him under the supervision of the Department of Probation for a period of 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s finding was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (People v Bleak[189]*189ley, 69 NY2d 490). Upon a fair reading of the record, we find that there was ample evidence from which the court could have inferred appellant’s guilt. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Nardelli, Williams, Rubin and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

265 A.D.2d 188, 696 N.Y.S.2d 807, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10159, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-hopeton-s-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack