In re Jerome H.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Jerome H.

15 A.D.3d 247, 788 N.Y.S.2d 856, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1462

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

DecidedFebruary 10, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 15 A.D.3d 247 (In re Jerome 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 Jerome H., 15 A.D.3d 247, 788 N.Y.S.2d 856, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1462 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Mary E. Bednar, J.), entered on or about August 13, 2003, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that he committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of robbery in the second degree, grand larceny in the fourth degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, and placed him on probation for a period of 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly denied appellant’s motion to preclude identification testimony (see Family Ct Act § 330.2 [2]; CEL 710.30 [1] [b]). There was no police-arranged identification requiring notice, and, in any event, the notice provided by the presentment agency was sufficient (see People v Lopez, 84 NY2d 425 [1994]). Concur — Andrias, J.E, Saxe, Sullivan, Ellerin and Sweeny, 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 E. Bednar, J.), entered on or about August 13, 2003, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that he committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of robbery in the second degree, grand larceny in the fourth degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, and placed him on probation for a period of 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly denied appellant’s motion to preclude identification testimony (see Family Ct Act § 330.2 [2]; CEL 710.30 [1] [b]). There was no police-arranged identification requiring notice, and, in any event, the notice provided by the presentment agency was sufficient (see People v Lopez, 84 NY2d 425 [1994]). Concur — Andrias, J.E, Saxe, Sullivan, Ellerin and Sweeny, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 A.D.3d 247, 788 N.Y.S.2d 856, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1462, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-jerome-h-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack