In re Kevin R.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Kevin R.

80 A.D.3d 439, 914 N.Y.S.2d 143

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

DecidedJanuary 4, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 80 A.D.3d 439 (In re Kevin R.) 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 Kevin R., 80 A.D.3d 439, 914 N.Y.S.2d 143 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Mary E. Bednar, J.), entered on or about March 11, 2009, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent upon a fact-finding determination that he committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of sexual abuse in the second and third degrees, and placed him on probation for a period of 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly denied appellant’s motion to suppress his statements. The police fully complied with the parental notification provision of Family Court Act § 305.2 (3). The fact that a parent who appears at a juvenile’s interrogation is also the parent of the complainant is not disqualifying, but is simply a factor to be considered in evaluating the voluntariness of the statement (Matter of James OO., 234 AD2d 822 [1996], lv denied 89 NY2d 812 [1997]; see also Matter of Arthur O., 55 AD3d 1019, 1020 [2008]). There was no coercive police conduct, and 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]).

The court’s finding was based on legally sufficient evidence [440]*440and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). Appellant’s challenges to the reliability of his confession are unavailing.

We have considered and rejected appellant’s remaining claims. Concur — Tom, J.P., Moskowitz, Freedman, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, 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 March 11, 2009, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent upon a fact-finding determination that he committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of sexual abuse in the second and third degrees, and placed him on probation for a period of 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly denied appellant’s motion to suppress his statements. The police fully complied with the parental notification provision of Family Court Act § 305.2 (3). The fact that a parent who appears at a juvenile’s interrogation is also the parent of the complainant is not disqualifying, but is simply a factor to be considered in evaluating the voluntariness of the statement (Matter of James OO., 234 AD2d 822 [1996], lv denied 89 NY2d 812 [1997]; see also Matter of Arthur O., 55 AD3d 1019, 1020 [2008]). There was no coercive police conduct, and 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]).

The court’s finding was based on legally sufficient evidence [440]*440and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). Appellant’s challenges to the reliability of his confession are unavailing.

We have considered and rejected appellant’s remaining claims. Concur — Tom, J.P., Moskowitz, Freedman, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

80 A.D.3d 439, 914 N.Y.S.2d 143, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-kevin-r-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack