In re Lyndell C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Lyndell C.

23 A.D.3d 306, 804 N.Y.S.2d 313

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

DecidedNovember 29, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 23 A.D.3d 306 (In re Lyndell C.) 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 Lyndell C., 23 A.D.3d 306, 804 N.Y.S.2d 313 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Mary E. Bednar, J.), entered on or about September 20, 2004, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that he committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of attempted grand larceny in the fourth degree, and imposed a conditional discharge for a period of 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly denied appellant’s motion to suppress his statements to the police. The evidence established that appellant was questioned in a designated juvenile room in the presence of his mother, and that he knowingly and intelligently waived his Miranda rights (see Fare v Michael C., 442 US 707, 725-728 [1979]). Appellant clearly and unequivocally stated that he understood each right, and gave no indication to the contrary.

The court’s finding was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. The evidence, including appellant’s voluntary and reliable statement, established his accessorial liability beyond a reasonable doubt. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Mazzarelli, Ellerin, Catterson and McGuire, 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 September 20, 2004, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that he committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of attempted grand larceny in the fourth degree, and imposed a conditional discharge for a period of 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly denied appellant’s motion to suppress his statements to the police. The evidence established that appellant was questioned in a designated juvenile room in the presence of his mother, and that he knowingly and intelligently waived his Miranda rights (see Fare v Michael C., 442 US 707, 725-728 [1979]). Appellant clearly and unequivocally stated that he understood each right, and gave no indication to the contrary.

The court’s finding was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. The evidence, including appellant’s voluntary and reliable statement, established his accessorial liability beyond a reasonable doubt. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Mazzarelli, Ellerin, Catterson and McGuire, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 A.D.3d 306, 804 N.Y.S.2d 313, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-lyndell-c-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack