In re Jamal H.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Jamal H.

235 A.D.2d 270, 652 N.Y.S.2d 36, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 272

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 16, 1997·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Order, Family Court, New York County (Bruce Kaplan, J.), entered on about [271] December 20, 1995, adjudicating respondent a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that he had committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of attempted robbery in the third degree and attempted assault in the third degree, and placing him with the Division for Youth for a period of up to 18 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Under the facts of this case, the speedy trial provisions of Family Court Act § 340.1 were observed (see, Matter of Garrett T., 224 AD2d 308). Since respondent was released on August 21, 1995 after his initial appearance on August 15, 1995 and after a subsequent adjournment for good cause on August 18, 1995, the 60-day period for the commencement of the fact-finding hearing under Family Court Act § 340.1 (2) was applicable to this case, and not the 3-day period under section 340.1 (1).

We have considered respondent’s other arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Nardelli, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Order, Family Court, New York County (Bruce Kaplan, J.), entered on about [271] December 20, 1995, adjudicating respondent a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that he had committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of attempted robbery in the third degree and attempted assault in the third degree, and placing him with the Division for Youth for a period of up to 18 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Under the facts of this case, the speedy trial provisions of Family Court Act § 340.1 were observed (see, Matter of Garrett T., 224 AD2d 308). Since respondent was released on August 21, 1995 after his initial appearance on August 15, 1995 and after a subsequent adjournment for good cause on August 18, 1995, the 60-day period for the commencement of the fact-finding hearing under Family Court Act § 340.1 (2) was applicable to this case, and not the 3-day period under section 340.1 (1).

We have considered respondent’s other arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Nardelli, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

In re Jamal H., 235 A.D.2d 270, 652 N.Y.S.2d 36, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 272 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

235 A.D.2d 270 (In re Jamal H.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related