In re of Jose R.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re of Jose R.

203 A.D.2d 217, 611 N.Y.S.2d 173, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4378

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

DecidedApril 28, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 203 A.D.2d 217 (In re of Jose R.) 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 of Jose R., 203 A.D.2d 217, 611 N.Y.S.2d 173, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4378 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Gloria Sosa-Lintner, J.), entered February 22, 1993, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent following a fact finding determination that he had committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, and placed him with the Division for Youth for a period of 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The officers had reasonable suspicion to temporarily detain defendant and his companion until they could be identified by the complainant where the two were observed walking together and one matched a very detailed description and the other, while matching a general description, was wearing two leather jackets, and the complainant had just been robbed of a leather jacket (CPL 140.50; People v De Bour, 40 NY2d 210, 223). Concur — Sullivan, J. P, Carro, Ellerin, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

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

—Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Gloria Sosa-Lintner, J.), entered February 22, 1993, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent following a fact finding determination that he had committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, and placed him with the Division for Youth for a period of 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The officers had reasonable suspicion to temporarily detain defendant and his companion until they could be identified by the complainant where the two were observed walking together and one matched a very detailed description and the other, while matching a general description, was wearing two leather jackets, and the complainant had just been robbed of a leather jacket (CPL 140.50; People v De Bour, 40 NY2d 210, 223). Concur — Sullivan, J. P, Carro, Ellerin, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

203 A.D.2d 217, 611 N.Y.S.2d 173, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4378, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-of-jose-r-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack