In re Leroy P.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Leroy P.

51 A.D.2d 537, 378 N.Y.S.2d 648, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10768

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

DecidedJanuary 12, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 51 A.D.2d 537 (In re Leroy P.) 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 Leroy P., 51 A.D.2d 537, 378 N.Y.S.2d 648, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10768 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to article 7 of the Family Court Act, the appeal (by permission), as limited by appellant’s brief, is from so much of an order of the Family Court, Queens County, dated October 9, 1973, as denied a motion to vacate a fact-finding determination that appellant had committed an act which, if done by an adult, would constitute a crime. The balance of the order dismissed the petition and terminated the proceeding. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law and the facts, without costs, motion granted and fact-finding determination vacated. The record on this appeal reveals (and the Corporation Counsel concedes in his brief) that there was a failure to prove that appellant possessed an instrument in violation of subdivision 4 of section 265.05 of the Penal Law as charged in the petition; accordingly, the fact-finding determination should be vacated. Gulotta, P. J., Hopkins, Martuscello, Cohalan and Rabin, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to article 7 of the Family Court Act, the appeal (by permission), as limited by appellant’s brief, is from so much of an order of the Family Court, Queens County, dated October 9, 1973, as denied a motion to vacate a fact-finding determination that appellant had committed an act which, if done by an adult, would constitute a crime. The balance of the order dismissed the petition and terminated the proceeding. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law and the facts, without costs, motion granted and fact-finding determination vacated. The record on this appeal reveals (and the Corporation Counsel concedes in his brief) that there was a failure to prove that appellant possessed an instrument in violation of subdivision 4 of section 265.05 of the Penal Law as charged in the petition; accordingly, the fact-finding determination should be vacated. Gulotta, P. J., Hopkins, Martuscello, Cohalan and Rabin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 A.D.2d 537, 378 N.Y.S.2d 648, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10768, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-leroy-p-nyappdiv-1976.