In re Nathaniel F.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Nathaniel F.

1 A.D.3d 203, 767 N.Y.S.2d 217

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

DecidedNovember 18, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 1 A.D.3d 203 (In re Nathaniel F.) 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 Nathaniel F., 1 A.D.3d 203, 767 N.Y.S.2d 217 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Harold [204]*204Lynch, J.), entered on or about August 28, 2002, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that he committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of attempted assault in the third degree, and placed him on probation for a period of 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Appellant’s right to a speedy trial was not violated since the fact-finding hearing commenced on the 60th day following his initial appearance (Family Ct Act § 340.1 [2]; Matter of Ango H., 286 AD2d 500, 501 [2001]; Matter of Sharnell J., 237 AD2d 290 [1997]). The various subdivisions of Family Court Act § 340.1 dealing with adjournments refer to adjournments of the commencement of a fact-finding hearing and not to delays in completing the hearing, which are addressed to the court’s sound discretion (see Matter of Eric W., 68 NY2d 633 [1986]; People v Foy, 32 NY2d 473, 476 [1973]; Matter of George T., 290 AD2d 396 [2002], revd on other grounds 99 NY2d 307 [2002]). The court’s discretion was properly exercised in this case. Concur—Saxe, J.P., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Friedman and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Harold [204]*204Lynch, J.), entered on or about August 28, 2002, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that he committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of attempted assault in the third degree, and placed him on probation for a period of 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Appellant’s right to a speedy trial was not violated since the fact-finding hearing commenced on the 60th day following his initial appearance (Family Ct Act § 340.1 [2]; Matter of Ango H., 286 AD2d 500, 501 [2001]; Matter of Sharnell J., 237 AD2d 290 [1997]). The various subdivisions of Family Court Act § 340.1 dealing with adjournments refer to adjournments of the commencement of a fact-finding hearing and not to delays in completing the hearing, which are addressed to the court’s sound discretion (see Matter of Eric W., 68 NY2d 633 [1986]; People v Foy, 32 NY2d 473, 476 [1973]; Matter of George T., 290 AD2d 396 [2002], revd on other grounds 99 NY2d 307 [2002]). The court’s discretion was properly exercised in this case. Concur—Saxe, J.P., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Friedman and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 A.D.3d 203, 767 N.Y.S.2d 217, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-nathaniel-f-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack