In re Jerome P.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Jerome P.

96 A.D.3d 576, 946 N.Y.S.2d 476

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

DecidedJune 19, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 96 A.D.3d 576 (In re Jerome P.) 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 P., 96 A.D.3d 576, 946 N.Y.S.2d 476 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Sidney Gribetz, J.), entered on or about May 4, 2011, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent upon a fact-finding determination that he committed an act that, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of criminal possession of marijuana in the fifth degree, and placed him on probation for a period of 12 months, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the petition dismissed as a matter of discretion.

As the presentment agency concedes, appellant should have been permitted to establish a prior inconsistent statement made by a police witness. “Since the appellant has already served the one-year term of probation imposed at the dispositional hearing, this matter is dismissed instead of remanded for a new fact-finding hearing” (Matter of Tracy B., 80 AD2d 792 [1981]). Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Catterson, Acosta, Freedman and Román, JJ.

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

— Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Sidney Gribetz, J.), entered on or about May 4, 2011, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent upon a fact-finding determination that he committed an act that, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of criminal possession of marijuana in the fifth degree, and placed him on probation for a period of 12 months, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the petition dismissed as a matter of discretion.

As the presentment agency concedes, appellant should have been permitted to establish a prior inconsistent statement made by a police witness. “Since the appellant has already served the one-year term of probation imposed at the dispositional hearing, this matter is dismissed instead of remanded for a new fact-finding hearing” (Matter of Tracy B., 80 AD2d 792 [1981]). Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Catterson, Acosta, Freedman and Román, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

96 A.D.3d 576, 946 N.Y.S.2d 476, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-jerome-p-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack