In re Jesus M.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Jesus M.

255 A.D.2d 124, 678 N.Y.S.2d 898, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11634

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

DecidedNovember 5, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 255 A.D.2d 124 (In re Jesus M.) 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 Jesus M., 255 A.D.2d 124, 678 N.Y.S.2d 898, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11634 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Cira Martinez, J.), entered on or about November 12, 1997, 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 promoting prison contraband in the second degree, and placed him with the Division for Youth for a period of 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The fact-finding determination was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (People v Acosta, 80 NY2d 665; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490). There was ample evidence from which the court could have inferred that appellant knowingly and unlawfully introduced marihuana into a detention center, and we do not find any plausible innocent explanation for the presence of marihuana in appellant’s clothing. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Cira Martinez, J.), entered on or about November 12, 1997, 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 promoting prison contraband in the second degree, and placed him with the Division for Youth for a period of 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The fact-finding determination was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (People v Acosta, 80 NY2d 665; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490). There was ample evidence from which the court could have inferred that appellant knowingly and unlawfully introduced marihuana into a detention center, and we do not find any plausible innocent explanation for the presence of marihuana in appellant’s clothing. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 A.D.2d 124, 678 N.Y.S.2d 898, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11634, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-jesus-m-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack