In re Jason G.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Jason G.

294 A.D.2d 181, 741 N.Y.S.2d 685, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4941

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

DecidedMay 14, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 294 A.D.2d 181 (In re Jason G.) 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 Jason G., 294 A.D.2d 181, 741 N.Y.S.2d 685, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4941 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County, (Mary Bednar, J.), entered on or about December 14, 2000, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that he had committed acts, which if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree and criminal possession of marijuana in the fifth degree, and imposed a conditional discharge, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s finding was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis upon which to disturb the court’s determinations concerning credibility. In addition to the automobile presumption (Penal Law § 220.25 [1]), the court properly relied on testimony from which it could be inferred that appellant attempted to [182]*182hide the drugs. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Rubin and Friedman, 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 December 14, 2000, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that he had committed acts, which if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree and criminal possession of marijuana in the fifth degree, and imposed a conditional discharge, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s finding was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis upon which to disturb the court’s determinations concerning credibility. In addition to the automobile presumption (Penal Law § 220.25 [1]), the court properly relied on testimony from which it could be inferred that appellant attempted to [182]*182hide the drugs. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Rubin and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

294 A.D.2d 181, 741 N.Y.S.2d 685, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4941, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-jason-g-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack