In re Julius S.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Julius S.

44 A.D.2d 826, 355 N.Y.S.2d 158, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5112

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

DecidedMay 3, 1974

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 44 A.D.2d 826 (In re Julius S.) 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 S., 44 A.D.2d 826, 355 N.Y.S.2d 158, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5112 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from two orders of the Family Court, Richmond County, dated December 28, 1973 and February 22, 1974, respectively, the first adjudicating appellant a juvenile delinquent, after a fact finding hearing, and the second committing him to the Elmira Reception Center for a term of three years. Orders reversed, on the law, without costs, and petition dismissed. Appellant was adjudicated a juvenile delinquent on the testimony of two accomplices. However, the record is devoid of any independent corroborative evidence tending to connect appellant with the commission of the offense alleged in the petition. Without such independent corroboration^ the adjudication of delinquency may not be sustained (People v. Fitzgerald, 244 N. Y. 307; Matter of William L., 41 A D 2d 674; Matter of Arthur M., 34 A D 2d 761). With commendable candor, the Corporation Counsel, respondent’s attorney, agrees that the order under review should be reversed. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Shapiro, Christ and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from two orders of the Family Court, Richmond County, dated December 28, 1973 and February 22, 1974, respectively, the first adjudicating appellant a juvenile delinquent, after a fact finding hearing, and the second committing him to the Elmira Reception Center for a term of three years. Orders reversed, on the law, without costs, and petition dismissed. Appellant was adjudicated a juvenile delinquent on the testimony of two accomplices. However, the record is devoid of any independent corroborative evidence tending to connect appellant with the commission of the offense alleged in the petition. Without such independent corroboration^ the adjudication of delinquency may not be sustained (People v. Fitzgerald, 244 N. Y. 307; Matter of William L., 41 A D 2d 674; Matter of Arthur M., 34 A D 2d 761). With commendable candor, the Corporation Counsel, respondent’s attorney, agrees that the order under review should be reversed. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Shapiro, Christ and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

44 A.D.2d 826, 355 N.Y.S.2d 158, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5112, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-julius-s-nyappdiv-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack