In re Malcolm M.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Malcolm M.

13 A.D.3d 116, 785 N.Y.S.2d 686, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15024

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

DecidedDecember 9, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 13 A.D.3d 116 (In re Malcolm M.) 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 Malcolm M., 13 A.D.3d 116, 785 N.Y.S.2d 686, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15024 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

[117]*117Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Mary E. Bednar, J.), entered on or about October 22, 2003, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that he committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of criminal trespass in the third degree (two counts), and placed him on probation for 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The petition was not jurisdictionally defective. The petition, on its face, clearly indicates that the affiant had personal knowledge as to all the essential elements of the charges (see Family Ct Act § 311.2 [3]; Matter of Edward B., 80 NY2d 458 [1992]).

The court’s finding was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). There is no basis for disturbing the court’s determinations concerning identification and credibility. Concur—Buckley, EJ., Ellerin, Lerner, Marlow and Catterson, JJ.

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

[117]*117Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Mary E. Bednar, J.), entered on or about October 22, 2003, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that he committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of criminal trespass in the third degree (two counts), and placed him on probation for 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The petition was not jurisdictionally defective. The petition, on its face, clearly indicates that the affiant had personal knowledge as to all the essential elements of the charges (see Family Ct Act § 311.2 [3]; Matter of Edward B., 80 NY2d 458 [1992]).

The court’s finding was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). There is no basis for disturbing the court’s determinations concerning identification and credibility. Concur—Buckley, EJ., Ellerin, Lerner, Marlow and Catterson, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 A.D.3d 116, 785 N.Y.S.2d 686, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15024, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-malcolm-m-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack