In re Jeff H.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Jeff H.

254 A.D.2d 38, 678 N.Y.S.2d 716, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10079

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

DecidedOctober 6, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 254 A.D.2d 38 (In re Jeff H.) 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 Jeff H., 254 A.D.2d 38, 678 N.Y.S.2d 716, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10079 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Sheldon Rand, J.), entered on or about June 3, 1997, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that appellant committed acts, which if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of attempted petit larceny, and placed appellant with the Division for Youth for a period of 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s fact-finding determination was based on legally [39]*39sufficient evidence. The acts of appellant and the other perpetrators tended to effect the commission of petit larceny, and the implicit threat of force further demonstrated appellant’s larcenous intent (see, Matter of Nehial W., 232 AD2d 152). The complainant’s testimony provided the court with ample basis upon which to reject appellant’s claim that his conduct was consistent with panhandling. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Nardelli and Tom, 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 (Sheldon Rand, J.), entered on or about June 3, 1997, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that appellant committed acts, which if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of attempted petit larceny, and placed appellant with the Division for Youth for a period of 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s fact-finding determination was based on legally [39]*39sufficient evidence. The acts of appellant and the other perpetrators tended to effect the commission of petit larceny, and the implicit threat of force further demonstrated appellant’s larcenous intent (see, Matter of Nehial W., 232 AD2d 152). The complainant’s testimony provided the court with ample basis upon which to reject appellant’s claim that his conduct was consistent with panhandling. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 A.D.2d 38, 678 N.Y.S.2d 716, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10079, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-jeff-h-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack