In re James S.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re James S.

255 A.D.2d 910, 680 N.Y.S.2d 884, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12111

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

DecidedNovember 13, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 255 A.D.2d 910 (In re James 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 James S., 255 A.D.2d 910, 680 N.Y.S.2d 884, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12111 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Family Court’s determination that respondent committed acts that, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of petit larceny (Penal Law § 155.25) and burglary in the second degree (Penal Law § 140.25 [2]) is supported by the record (see, Matter of George L., 173 AD2d 470). “The conflicting testimony of the witnesses presented an issue of credibility for Family Court to resolve” (Matter of Elrheihem T., 185 AD2d 626), and “[t]he court, as the trier of fact, was entitled to resolve questions of credibility against respondent” (Matter of Edward V., 204 AD2d 1060). (Appeal from Order of Chautauqua County Family Court, Hartley, J. — Juvenile Delinquency.) Present — Denman, P. J., Hayes, Wisner, Callahan and Boehm, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Family Court’s determination that respondent committed acts that, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of petit larceny (Penal Law § 155.25) and burglary in the second degree (Penal Law § 140.25 [2]) is supported by the record (see, Matter of George L., 173 AD2d 470). “The conflicting testimony of the witnesses presented an issue of credibility for Family Court to resolve” (Matter of Elrheihem T., 185 AD2d 626), and “[t]he court, as the trier of fact, was entitled to resolve questions of credibility against respondent” (Matter of Edward V., 204 AD2d 1060). (Appeal from Order of Chautauqua County Family Court, Hartley, J. — Juvenile Delinquency.) Present — Denman, P. J., Hayes, Wisner, Callahan and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 A.D.2d 910, 680 N.Y.S.2d 884, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12111, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-james-s-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack