In re Roland G.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Roland G.

6 A.D.3d 250, 774 N.Y.S.2d 337, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4513

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

DecidedApril 15, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 6 A.D.3d 250 (In re Roland G.) 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 Roland G., 6 A.D.3d 250, 774 N.Y.S.2d 337, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4513 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Sheldon M. Rand, J.), entered on or about April 11, 2003, 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 menacing in the third degree, and imposed a conditional discharge for a period of one year, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s finding was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis for disturbing the court’s determinations concerning credibility (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]). The credible evidence established each of the elements of menacing in the third degree (Penal Law § 120.15). Concur—Andrias, J.P., Lerner, Friedman and Marlow, 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 (Sheldon M. Rand, J.), entered on or about April 11, 2003, 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 menacing in the third degree, and imposed a conditional discharge for a period of one year, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s finding was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis for disturbing the court’s determinations concerning credibility (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]). The credible evidence established each of the elements of menacing in the third degree (Penal Law § 120.15). Concur—Andrias, J.P., Lerner, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 A.D.3d 250, 774 N.Y.S.2d 337, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4513, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-roland-g-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack