In re Lafleur L.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Lafleur L.

233 A.D.2d 950, 649 N.Y.S.2d 884, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13532

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

DecidedNovember 8, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 233 A.D.2d 950 (In re Lafleur L.) 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 Lafleur L., 233 A.D.2d 950, 649 N.Y.S.2d 884, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13532 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: The record establishes that respondent knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived his right to appeal (see, People v Callahan, 80 NY2d 273, 280). Nevertheless, respondent’s contention that the juvenile delinquency petition is jurisdictionally defective survives that waiver (see, Matter of Neftali D., 85 NY2d 631, 637). We conclude, however, that the nonhearsay allegations of the factual part of the petition along with the supporting depositions of the arresting officer and the complainant establish, if true, the elements of unauthorized use of a vehicle in the third degree (Penal Law § 165.05) and respondent’s commission thereof (see, Family Ct Act § 311.2 [3]; [951]*951cf., Matter of Na-Towi Z., 199 AD2d 937; Matter of Teheran KK., 190 AD2d 931). (Appeal from Order of Erie County Family Court, Townsend, J.—Person In Need of Supervision.) Present—Green, J. P., Lawton, Callahan, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: The record establishes that respondent knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived his right to appeal (see, People v Callahan, 80 NY2d 273, 280). Nevertheless, respondent’s contention that the juvenile delinquency petition is jurisdictionally defective survives that waiver (see, Matter of Neftali D., 85 NY2d 631, 637). We conclude, however, that the nonhearsay allegations of the factual part of the petition along with the supporting depositions of the arresting officer and the complainant establish, if true, the elements of unauthorized use of a vehicle in the third degree (Penal Law § 165.05) and respondent’s commission thereof (see, Family Ct Act § 311.2 [3]; [951]*951cf., Matter of Na-Towi Z., 199 AD2d 937; Matter of Teheran KK., 190 AD2d 931). (Appeal from Order of Erie County Family Court, Townsend, J.—Person In Need of Supervision.) Present—Green, J. P., Lawton, Callahan, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

233 A.D.2d 950, 649 N.Y.S.2d 884, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13532, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-lafleur-l-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack