In re Kareem B.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Kareem B.

63 A.D.3d 565, 881 N.Y.S.2d 97

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

DecidedJune 23, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 63 A.D.3d 565 (In re Kareem B.) 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 Kareem B., 63 A.D.3d 565, 881 N.Y.S.2d 97 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Mary E. Bednar, J.), entered on or about November 9, 2007, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that he committed acts which, if committed by [566]*566an adult, would constitute the crimes of rape in the first degree and sexual abuse in the first degree, and placed him with the Office of Children and Family Services for a period of up to 18 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly denied appellant’s motion to suppress his statement to the police, since the totality of the circumstances establishes that the statement was voluntarily made (see Arizona v Fulminante, 499 US 279, 285-288 [1991]; People v Anderson, 42 NY2d 35, 38-39 [1977]). A detective’s preliminary explanation of the Family Court process did not contain any promise that appellant would receive more favorable treatment if he confessed or less favorable treatment if he failed to do so. The detectives’ statements to appellant that they did not believe his initial story were not unduly coercive.

The court’s finding was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the court’s determinations concerning credibility, in which it accepted the victim’s account of the incident. Concur— Tom, J.E, Friedman, Catterson, Moskowitz and Richter, 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 (Mary E. Bednar, J.), entered on or about November 9, 2007, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that he committed acts which, if committed by [566]*566an adult, would constitute the crimes of rape in the first degree and sexual abuse in the first degree, and placed him with the Office of Children and Family Services for a period of up to 18 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly denied appellant’s motion to suppress his statement to the police, since the totality of the circumstances establishes that the statement was voluntarily made (see Arizona v Fulminante, 499 US 279, 285-288 [1991]; People v Anderson, 42 NY2d 35, 38-39 [1977]). A detective’s preliminary explanation of the Family Court process did not contain any promise that appellant would receive more favorable treatment if he confessed or less favorable treatment if he failed to do so. The detectives’ statements to appellant that they did not believe his initial story were not unduly coercive.

The court’s finding was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the court’s determinations concerning credibility, in which it accepted the victim’s account of the incident. Concur— Tom, J.E, Friedman, Catterson, Moskowitz and Richter, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 A.D.3d 565, 881 N.Y.S.2d 97, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-kareem-b-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack