In re Kenneth S.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Kenneth S.

223 A.D.2d 381, 636 N.Y.S.2d 297, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 88

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

DecidedJanuary 9, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 223 A.D.2d 381 (In re Kenneth 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 Kenneth S., 223 A.D.2d 381, 636 N.Y.S.2d 297, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 88 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Leah Marks, J.), entered on or about April 7, 1995, which adjudicated respondent a juvenile delinquent upon a finding that he committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of attempted grand larceny in the fourth degree and attempted petit larceny, and placed him with the Division for Youth for up to 1 year or until placement became available in a residential treatment facility, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s findings were based on legally sufficient evidence and were not against the weight of the evidence. The presentment agency’s failure to locate and call the victim to testify was not fatal to its case (cf., Matter of Maldonado, 131 AD2d 367, lv denied sub nom. Matter of Carlos M., 70 NY2d 608). The [382]*382eyewitness testimony of the police officer that respondent had his hands in the victim’s pocket and quickly removed them upon seeing the officer was sufficient to permit an inference that he intended to steal property owned by the victim. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Rubin, Nardelli, Tom and Mazzarelli, 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 (Leah Marks, J.), entered on or about April 7, 1995, which adjudicated respondent a juvenile delinquent upon a finding that he committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of attempted grand larceny in the fourth degree and attempted petit larceny, and placed him with the Division for Youth for up to 1 year or until placement became available in a residential treatment facility, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s findings were based on legally sufficient evidence and were not against the weight of the evidence. The presentment agency’s failure to locate and call the victim to testify was not fatal to its case (cf., Matter of Maldonado, 131 AD2d 367, lv denied sub nom. Matter of Carlos M., 70 NY2d 608). The [382]*382eyewitness testimony of the police officer that respondent had his hands in the victim’s pocket and quickly removed them upon seeing the officer was sufficient to permit an inference that he intended to steal property owned by the victim. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Rubin, Nardelli, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

223 A.D.2d 381, 636 N.Y.S.2d 297, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 88, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-kenneth-s-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack