In re Robert S.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Robert S.

240 A.D.2d 314, 659 N.Y.S.2d 444, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6736

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

DecidedJune 24, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 240 A.D.2d 314 (In re Robert 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 Robert S., 240 A.D.2d 314, 659 N.Y.S.2d 444, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6736 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Judith Sheindlin, J.), entered April 24, 1996, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, following a fact-finding determination that he committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, defacing a firearm, and menacing in the second [315]*315degree, and placed him with the Division for Youth for 3 years, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The designated felony act petition was not rendered defective by the presentment agency’s failure to attach certified copies of the prior delinquency findings. The attachment of certified copies of prior delinquency findings is the preferred method (see, Family Ct Act § 311.1 [5]), but not the exclusive method providing sufficient proof of the prior felony acts. It was sufficient under the circumstances to list the prior felony determinations in great detail, including their docket numbers, in the body of a verified petition that was clearly labeled a designated felony act petition (cf., Matter of Warren W., 216 AD2d 225).

The court’s findings were based on legally sufficient evidence, and were not against the weight of the evidence. The testimony adduced at the fact-finding hearing was sufficient to establish every element of the crimes charged, including intent to use the weapon unlawfully, and intent to deface the weapon (see, Penal Law § 265.15 [4], [5]).

Appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Nardelli, Rubin and Mazzarelli, 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 (Judith Sheindlin, J.), entered April 24, 1996, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, following a fact-finding determination that he committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, defacing a firearm, and menacing in the second [315]*315degree, and placed him with the Division for Youth for 3 years, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The designated felony act petition was not rendered defective by the presentment agency’s failure to attach certified copies of the prior delinquency findings. The attachment of certified copies of prior delinquency findings is the preferred method (see, Family Ct Act § 311.1 [5]), but not the exclusive method providing sufficient proof of the prior felony acts. It was sufficient under the circumstances to list the prior felony determinations in great detail, including their docket numbers, in the body of a verified petition that was clearly labeled a designated felony act petition (cf., Matter of Warren W., 216 AD2d 225).

The court’s findings were based on legally sufficient evidence, and were not against the weight of the evidence. The testimony adduced at the fact-finding hearing was sufficient to establish every element of the crimes charged, including intent to use the weapon unlawfully, and intent to deface the weapon (see, Penal Law § 265.15 [4], [5]).

Appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Nardelli, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

240 A.D.2d 314, 659 N.Y.S.2d 444, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6736, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-robert-s-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack