In re Rafael S.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Rafael S.

214 A.D.2d 454, 625 N.Y.S.2d 900, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4459

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

DecidedApril 20, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 214 A.D.2d 454 (In re Rafael 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 Rafael S., 214 A.D.2d 454, 625 N.Y.S.2d 900, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4459 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Mary Bednar, J.), entered May 9, 1995, which adjudicated respondent a juvenile delinquent and placed him with the Division for Youth for a period of 18 months, following a fact-finding determination that respondent committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

For the reasons stated in Matter of Deshone C. and Matter of Mark M. (207 AD2d 756, lv denied 85 NY2d 801), there is no merit to respondent’s contention that the juvenile delinquency petition was jurisdictionally defective. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Asch and Williams, 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 (Mary Bednar, J.), entered May 9, 1995, which adjudicated respondent a juvenile delinquent and placed him with the Division for Youth for a period of 18 months, following a fact-finding determination that respondent committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

For the reasons stated in Matter of Deshone C. and Matter of Mark M. (207 AD2d 756, lv denied 85 NY2d 801), there is no merit to respondent’s contention that the juvenile delinquency petition was jurisdictionally defective. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Asch and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

214 A.D.2d 454, 625 N.Y.S.2d 900, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4459, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-rafael-s-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack