In re Marie K.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Marie K.

308 A.D.2d 377, 764 N.Y.S.2d 356, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9570

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

DecidedSeptember 18, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 308 A.D.2d 377 (In re Marie K.) 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 Marie K., 308 A.D.2d 377, 764 N.Y.S.2d 356, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9570 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Myrna Martinez-Perez, J.), entered on or about July 10, 2002, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent upon a fact-finding determination that appellant committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of attempted assault in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, criminal mischief in the fourth degree and menacing in the third degree, and placed her on probation for a period of 12 months, held in abeyance, and the matter remanded for a hearing on appellant’s motion to suppress a statement.

As the presentment agency concedes, the court should have conducted a hearing on appellant’s motion to suppress her statement to the police on the ground of involuntariness. Appellant’s statement contained significant admissions, and we reject the presentment agency’s argument that the court’s error was harmless (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 237 [1975]). Concur — Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Sullivan, Rosenberger and Marlow, JJ.

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

—Appeal from order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Myrna Martinez-Perez, J.), entered on or about July 10, 2002, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent upon a fact-finding determination that appellant committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of attempted assault in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, criminal mischief in the fourth degree and menacing in the third degree, and placed her on probation for a period of 12 months, held in abeyance, and the matter remanded for a hearing on appellant’s motion to suppress a statement.

As the presentment agency concedes, the court should have conducted a hearing on appellant’s motion to suppress her statement to the police on the ground of involuntariness. Appellant’s statement contained significant admissions, and we reject the presentment agency’s argument that the court’s error was harmless (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 237 [1975]). Concur — Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Sullivan, Rosenberger and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

308 A.D.2d 377, 764 N.Y.S.2d 356, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9570, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-marie-k-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack