In re Julius D.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Julius D.

70 A.D.2d 819, 417 N.Y.S.2d 470, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12371

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

DecidedJune 14, 1979

StatusPublished

This text of 70 A.D.2d 819 (In re Julius D.) 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 Julius D., 70 A.D.2d 819, 417 N.Y.S.2d 470, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12371 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order, Family Court, Bronx County, entered August 11, 1978, adjudicating respondent a juvenile delinquent and placing him restrictively with the Division for Youth, Title III, unanimously affirmed, without costs or disbursements. We agree with the rationale of the fact-finding court in its well-reasoned decision, except its finding that the six-year-old victim’s prompt disclosure to his mother could be considered on the issue of corroboration. Timely complaint bears on credibility. It does not furnish corroboration. (People v Carey, 223 NY 519; People v Page, 162 NY 272; but see People v Yannucci, 283 NY 546, 550.) The record, nevertheless, [820]*820does disclose sufficient corroborating evidence, to which the fact-finding court made appropriate reference, to support the determination. Concur— Birns, J. P., Fein, Sullivan, Markewich and Silverman, JJ.

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

— Order, Family Court, Bronx County, entered August 11, 1978, adjudicating respondent a juvenile delinquent and placing him restrictively with the Division for Youth, Title III, unanimously affirmed, without costs or disbursements. We agree with the rationale of the fact-finding court in its well-reasoned decision, except its finding that the six-year-old victim’s prompt disclosure to his mother could be considered on the issue of corroboration. Timely complaint bears on credibility. It does not furnish corroboration. (People v Carey, 223 NY 519; People v Page, 162 NY 272; but see People v Yannucci, 283 NY 546, 550.) The record, nevertheless, [820]*820does disclose sufficient corroborating evidence, to which the fact-finding court made appropriate reference, to support the determination. Concur— Birns, J. P., Fein, Sullivan, Markewich and Silverman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

70 A.D.2d 819, 417 N.Y.S.2d 470, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12371, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-julius-d-nyappdiv-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack