In re Mitchell W.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Mitchell W.

12 A.D.3d 327, 784 N.Y.S.2d 864, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14409

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

DecidedNovember 30, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 12 A.D.3d 327 (In re Mitchell W.) 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 Mitchell W., 12 A.D.3d 327, 784 N.Y.S.2d 864, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14409 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Sheldon M. Rand, J.), entered on or about December 11, 2003, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that he committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, and placed him on probation for a period of 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s finding was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis for disturbing the court’s determinations concerning cred[328]*328ibility and identification. We note that even if we were to assume that the observing officer lost sight of the buyer, we would still find inescapable the inference that the drug packet abandoned by the buyer was the unidentified object that he had just obtained from appellant in return for money (see e.g. People v Bolden, 6 AD3d 315 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 637 [2004]; People v Starks, 216 AD2d 120 [1995], affd 88 NY2d 18 [1996]). Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Saxe, Friedman and Catterson, 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 (Sheldon M. Rand, J.), entered on or about December 11, 2003, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that he committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, and placed him on probation for a period of 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s finding was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis for disturbing the court’s determinations concerning cred[328]*328ibility and identification. We note that even if we were to assume that the observing officer lost sight of the buyer, we would still find inescapable the inference that the drug packet abandoned by the buyer was the unidentified object that he had just obtained from appellant in return for money (see e.g. People v Bolden, 6 AD3d 315 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 637 [2004]; People v Starks, 216 AD2d 120 [1995], affd 88 NY2d 18 [1996]). Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Saxe, Friedman and Catterson, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 A.D.3d 327, 784 N.Y.S.2d 864, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14409, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-mitchell-w-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack