In re Leo B.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Leo B.

112 A.D.2d 367, 492 N.Y.S.2d 49, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56500

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

DecidedJuly 22, 1985

StatusPublished

This text of 112 A.D.2d 367 (In re Leo 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 Leo B., 112 A.D.2d 367, 492 N.Y.S.2d 49, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56500 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a dispositional order of the Family Court, Queens County (Gallet, J.), dated September 14, 1984, which, upon a fact-finding determination that appellant committed an act which if committed by an adult would have constituted the crime of criminal mischief in the fourth de[368]*368gree, placed appellant in the custody of the Division for Youth, for one year. The appeal brings up for review said fact-finding determination.

Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

There was sufficient evidence adduced to support a finding by the Family Court that appellant had committed an act which, if done by an adult, would have constituted the crime of criminal mischief in the fourth degree. We have reviewed the appellant’s remaining argument and find it to be without merit. Mollen, P. J., Mangano, O’Connor and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from a dispositional order of the Family Court, Queens County (Gallet, J.), dated September 14, 1984, which, upon a fact-finding determination that appellant committed an act which if committed by an adult would have constituted the crime of criminal mischief in the fourth de[368]*368gree, placed appellant in the custody of the Division for Youth, for one year. The appeal brings up for review said fact-finding determination.

Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

There was sufficient evidence adduced to support a finding by the Family Court that appellant had committed an act which, if done by an adult, would have constituted the crime of criminal mischief in the fourth degree. We have reviewed the appellant’s remaining argument and find it to be without merit. Mollen, P. J., Mangano, O’Connor and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

112 A.D.2d 367, 492 N.Y.S.2d 49, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56500, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-leo-b-nyappdiv-1985.