In re Kenneth B.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Kenneth B.

277 A.D.2d 10, 715 N.Y.S.2d 401, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11033

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

DecidedNovember 2, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 277 A.D.2d 10 (In re Kenneth 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 Kenneth B., 277 A.D.2d 10, 715 N.Y.S.2d 401, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11033 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Mary Bednar, J.), entered on or about October 21, 1999, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that appellant committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, and placed him on probation for a period of 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s finding was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of fhe evidence. The evidence warranted the inference that appellant knew that the property in question was stolen and not merely the subject of a dispute as to its ownership. Although appellant was not present for the actual theft, the evidence established that appellant received a stolen watch from another juvenile, while the complainant was still screaming for its "return, and then fled the scene with the other juvenile. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Tom, Lerner, Buckley and Friedman, 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 Bednar, J.), entered on or about October 21, 1999, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that appellant committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, and placed him on probation for a period of 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s finding was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of fhe evidence. The evidence warranted the inference that appellant knew that the property in question was stolen and not merely the subject of a dispute as to its ownership. Although appellant was not present for the actual theft, the evidence established that appellant received a stolen watch from another juvenile, while the complainant was still screaming for its "return, and then fled the scene with the other juvenile. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Tom, Lerner, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

277 A.D.2d 10, 715 N.Y.S.2d 401, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11033, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-kenneth-b-nyappdiv-2000.