In re Jerome R.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Jerome R.

90 A.D.2d 713, 455 N.Y.S.2d 1016, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18887

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

DecidedNovember 9, 1982

StatusPublished

This text of 90 A.D.2d 713 (In re Jerome R.) 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 R., 90 A.D.2d 713, 455 N.Y.S.2d 1016, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18887 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of fact finding and disposition, Family Court, New York County (Turret, F.C.J., at disposition; Eastman, F.C.J., at hearing and fact finding), entered May 1,1981, adjudicating respondent-appellant a juvenile delinquent upon a finding that he had committed acts which if done by an adult would constitute the crime of burglary in the third degree and which suspended judgment in contemplation of dismissal of the complaint and remanded respondent-appellant to the care and custody of his mother upon condition that he be supervised by the Harlem Interfaith Counselling Service, unanimously reversed, on the law, petition dismissed, order vacated and r.ecord expunged, without costs. As the Corporation Counsel candidly conceded, the record does not provide “a sufficient basis from which it may be inferred that appellant was on the premises to aid the co-respondent in the commission of his crime”. Concur — Sandler, J. P., Carro, Asch and Silverman, JJ.

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

Order of fact finding and disposition, Family Court, New York County (Turret, F.C.J., at disposition; Eastman, F.C.J., at hearing and fact finding), entered May 1,1981, adjudicating respondent-appellant a juvenile delinquent upon a finding that he had committed acts which if done by an adult would constitute the crime of burglary in the third degree and which suspended judgment in contemplation of dismissal of the complaint and remanded respondent-appellant to the care and custody of his mother upon condition that he be supervised by the Harlem Interfaith Counselling Service, unanimously reversed, on the law, petition dismissed, order vacated and r.ecord expunged, without costs. As the Corporation Counsel candidly conceded, the record does not provide “a sufficient basis from which it may be inferred that appellant was on the premises to aid the co-respondent in the commission of his crime”. Concur — Sandler, J. P., Carro, Asch and Silverman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

90 A.D.2d 713, 455 N.Y.S.2d 1016, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18887, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-jerome-r-nyappdiv-1982.