In re Manuel L.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Manuel L.

184 A.D.2d 485, 587 N.Y.S.2d 151, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8626

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

DecidedJune 30, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 184 A.D.2d 485 (In re Manuel 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 Manuel L., 184 A.D.2d 485, 587 N.Y.S.2d 151, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8626 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Susan R. Larabee, F.C.J.), entered April 8, 1992, which adjudicated respondent a juvenile delinquent upon a finding that he committed acts which, if done by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of robbery in the third degree, grand larceny in the fourth degree, and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, and placed him with the Division for Youth, Title III, for a period of up to 18 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

There is no merit to respondent’s contention that the petition should have been dismissed on the ground that the non-hearsay portion of an attached deposition did not adequately establish each and every element of the charged crimes. The record establishes that the non-hearsay portions of the supporting deposition complied with the standards of Family Court Act § 311.2 (3) (Matter of James J., 160 AD2d 699, affd 76 NY2d 883; Matter of Jose M., 178 AD2d 343; Matter of Dirhim A., 178 AD2d 339). Concur — Milonas, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman and Smith, JJ.

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

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Susan R. Larabee, F.C.J.), entered April 8, 1992, which adjudicated respondent a juvenile delinquent upon a finding that he committed acts which, if done by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of robbery in the third degree, grand larceny in the fourth degree, and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, and placed him with the Division for Youth, Title III, for a period of up to 18 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

There is no merit to respondent’s contention that the petition should have been dismissed on the ground that the non-hearsay portion of an attached deposition did not adequately establish each and every element of the charged crimes. The record establishes that the non-hearsay portions of the supporting deposition complied with the standards of Family Court Act § 311.2 (3) (Matter of James J., 160 AD2d 699, affd 76 NY2d 883; Matter of Jose M., 178 AD2d 343; Matter of Dirhim A., 178 AD2d 339). Concur — Milonas, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman and Smith, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

184 A.D.2d 485, 587 N.Y.S.2d 151, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8626, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-manuel-l-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack