In re Keith J.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Keith J.

52 A.D.2d 543, 382 N.Y.S.2d 81, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12089

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

DecidedApril 13, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 52 A.D.2d 543 (In re Keith J.) 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 Keith J., 52 A.D.2d 543, 382 N.Y.S.2d 81, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12089 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Order entered in the Family Court, Bronx County, on May 7, 1975 adjudicating appellant a juvenile delinquent and placing him on probation for one year, unanimously affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. The order appealed from was made following a fact-finding determination that appellant committed an act of juvenile delinquency, to wit, robbery in the second degree. The record supports the finding beyond a reasonable doubt. Appellant’s own testimony places him at the scene of the robbery and in the fleeing group of juveniles who had taken the victim’s property after assaulting her. His claim that he was present at the scene of the crime for an innocent purpose is unsupported and was not credited by the trial court. Concur—Stevens, P. J., Markewich, Kupferman, Lupiano and Nunez, JJ.

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

Order entered in the Family Court, Bronx County, on May 7, 1975 adjudicating appellant a juvenile delinquent and placing him on probation for one year, unanimously affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. The order appealed from was made following a fact-finding determination that appellant committed an act of juvenile delinquency, to wit, robbery in the second degree. The record supports the finding beyond a reasonable doubt. Appellant’s own testimony places him at the scene of the robbery and in the fleeing group of juveniles who had taken the victim’s property after assaulting her. His claim that he was present at the scene of the crime for an innocent purpose is unsupported and was not credited by the trial court. Concur—Stevens, P. J., Markewich, Kupferman, Lupiano and Nunez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 A.D.2d 543, 382 N.Y.S.2d 81, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12089, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-keith-j-nyappdiv-1976.