In re Richie McL.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Richie McL.

251 A.D.2d 236, 673 N.Y.S.2d 313, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7721

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

DecidedJune 25, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 251 A.D.2d 236 (In re Richie McL.) 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 Richie McL., 251 A.D.2d 236, 673 N.Y.S.2d 313, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7721 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Myrna Martinez-Perez, J.), entered on or about June 17, 1997, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent upon a fact-finding determination that appellant committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and placed him in the custody of the Division for Youth for a period of up to 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Appellant’s suppression motion was properly denied. We see no reason to disturb the hearing court’s credibility determinations, which were supported by the record (see, People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761; People v Berrios, 28 NY2d 361). Concur — Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Nardelli, Rubin and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Myrna Martinez-Perez, J.), entered on or about June 17, 1997, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent upon a fact-finding determination that appellant committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and placed him in the custody of the Division for Youth for a period of up to 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Appellant’s suppression motion was properly denied. We see no reason to disturb the hearing court’s credibility determinations, which were supported by the record (see, People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761; People v Berrios, 28 NY2d 361). Concur — Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Nardelli, Rubin and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

251 A.D.2d 236, 673 N.Y.S.2d 313, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7721, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-richie-mcl-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack