In re Michael S.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Michael S.

40 A.D.2d 633, 336 N.Y.S.2d 214, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3809

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

DecidedOctober 2, 1972

StatusPublished

This text of 40 A.D.2d 633 (In re Michael S.) 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 Michael S., 40 A.D.2d 633, 336 N.Y.S.2d 214, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3809 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

On reargument, order of the Family Court of the State of New York, New York County, entered May 23, 1969, which adjudicated respondent as a person in need of supervision, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs and without disbursements, and the juvenile delinquency petition dismissed. The order of this court entered on June 6,1972, is vacated [39 A D 2d 1019]. The standard of proof used was a preponderance of the evidence, and we affirmed on that basis on the authority of Matter of Ivan V. (29 N Y 2d 583). However, in the interim since our affirmance, the United States Supreme Court Per Curiam in June of this year determined that Matter of Winship (397 U. S. 358), which required proof beyond a reasonable doubt, should be applied retroactively. (Ivan V. v. City of New York, 407 U. S. 203.) Accordingly, we granted reargument. Concur — McGivern, J. P., Markewich, Kupferman, McNally and Eager, JJ.

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

On reargument, order of the Family Court of the State of New York, New York County, entered May 23, 1969, which adjudicated respondent as a person in need of supervision, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs and without disbursements, and the juvenile delinquency petition dismissed. The order of this court entered on June 6,1972, is vacated [39 A D 2d 1019]. The standard of proof used was a preponderance of the evidence, and we affirmed on that basis on the authority of Matter of Ivan V. (29 N Y 2d 583). However, in the interim since our affirmance, the United States Supreme Court Per Curiam in June of this year determined that Matter of Winship (397 U. S. 358), which required proof beyond a reasonable doubt, should be applied retroactively. (Ivan V. v. City of New York, 407 U. S. 203.) Accordingly, we granted reargument. Concur — McGivern, J. P., Markewich, Kupferman, McNally and Eager, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 A.D.2d 633, 336 N.Y.S.2d 214, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3809, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-michael-s-nyappdiv-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack