In re Jahi Y.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Jahi Y.

216 A.D.2d 9, 627 N.Y.S.2d 912, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5833

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 1, 1995·Published

Opinion

Order, Family [10]*10Court, New York County (Judith Sheindlin, J.), entered on or about February 1, 1994, which adjudicated respondent a juvenile delinquent and placed him on probation for two years, following a fact-finding determination on December 14, 1993, which found that respondent had committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute attempted robbery in the third degree, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The Family Court’s denial of a new trial on the grounds of newly discovered evidence was not an abuse of discretion, as respondent failed to meet his burden of proving that the three proposed witnesses could not have been found with due diligence before trial, despite the fact that at least two of them resided in respondent’s neighborhood and were known to him (see, Pullman v Pullman, 200 AD2d 430, lv dismissed 84 NY2d 850). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Ross, Williams and Tom, JJ.

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

Order, Family [10]*10Court, New York County (Judith Sheindlin, J.), entered on or about February 1, 1994, which adjudicated respondent a juvenile delinquent and placed him on probation for two years, following a fact-finding determination on December 14, 1993, which found that respondent had committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute attempted robbery in the third degree, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The Family Court’s denial of a new trial on the grounds of newly discovered evidence was not an abuse of discretion, as respondent failed to meet his burden of proving that the three proposed witnesses could not have been found with due diligence before trial, despite the fact that at least two of them resided in respondent’s neighborhood and were known to him (see, Pullman v Pullman, 200 AD2d 430, lv dismissed 84 NY2d 850). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Ross, Williams and Tom, JJ.

In re Jahi Y., 216 A.D.2d 9, 627 N.Y.S.2d 912, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5833 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

216 A.D.2d 9 (In re Jahi Y.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related