In re Joe A.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Joe A.

242 A.D.2d 509, 663 N.Y.S.2d 823, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9136

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

DecidedSeptember 30, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 242 A.D.2d 509 (In re Joe A.) 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 Joe A., 242 A.D.2d 509, 663 N.Y.S.2d 823, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9136 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Sheldon Rand, J.), entered on or about December 20, 1996, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, following a fact-finding determination that appellant committed an act, which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of unauthorized use of a vehicle in the third degree, and placed him with the Division for Youth, in a limited secure facility, for a period of 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s finding that appellant knew he lacked the owner’s consent to be in the car was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. Credibility issues concerning attempted flight were properly placed before the trier of fact and we find no reason to disturb its findings. Concur—Milonas, J. P., Nardelli, Rubin, 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, New York County (Sheldon Rand, J.), entered on or about December 20, 1996, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, following a fact-finding determination that appellant committed an act, which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of unauthorized use of a vehicle in the third degree, and placed him with the Division for Youth, in a limited secure facility, for a period of 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s finding that appellant knew he lacked the owner’s consent to be in the car was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. Credibility issues concerning attempted flight were properly placed before the trier of fact and we find no reason to disturb its findings. Concur—Milonas, J. P., Nardelli, Rubin, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

242 A.D.2d 509, 663 N.Y.S.2d 823, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9136, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-joe-a-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack