In re Ruben R.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Ruben R.

71 A.D.2d 1005, 420 N.Y.S.2d 300, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13336

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

DecidedSeptember 24, 1979

StatusPublished

This text of 71 A.D.2d 1005 (In re Ruben 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 Ruben R., 71 A.D.2d 1005, 420 N.Y.S.2d 300, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13336 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Westchester County, dated October 24, 1978 which, upon a determination made after a fact-finding hearing that appellant had committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute a crime, adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent and committed him to the custody of the Division for Youth. Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The inculpatory statements appellant seeks to suppress were made during police questioning which occurred in his mother’s presence and after he was advised of his Miranda rights. Under such circumstances we find that appellant’s waiver of his right to counsel was knowingly and voluntarily made (see Family Ct Act, § 724; cf. People v Bevilaequa, 45 NY2d 508; People v Townsend, 33 NY2d 37; Matter of Michelet P., 70 AD2d 68; Matter of Brian P. T., 58 AD2d 868). Shapiro, J. P., Cohalan, Margett and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Westchester County, dated October 24, 1978 which, upon a determination made after a fact-finding hearing that appellant had committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute a crime, adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent and committed him to the custody of the Division for Youth. Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The inculpatory statements appellant seeks to suppress were made during police questioning which occurred in his mother’s presence and after he was advised of his Miranda rights. Under such circumstances we find that appellant’s waiver of his right to counsel was knowingly and voluntarily made (see Family Ct Act, § 724; cf. People v Bevilaequa, 45 NY2d 508; People v Townsend, 33 NY2d 37; Matter of Michelet P., 70 AD2d 68; Matter of Brian P. T., 58 AD2d 868). Shapiro, J. P., Cohalan, Margett and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 A.D.2d 1005, 420 N.Y.S.2d 300, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13336, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-ruben-r-nyappdiv-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack