In re Ruby M.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Ruby M.

261 A.D.2d 331, 690 N.Y.S.2d 429, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5828

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

DecidedMay 27, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 261 A.D.2d 331 (In re Ruby M.) 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 Ruby M., 261 A.D.2d 331, 690 N.Y.S.2d 429, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5828 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Mary Bednar, J.), entered on or about November 13, 1997, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that appellant committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of grand larceny in the fourth degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree, and placed her on probation for a period of 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The finding was not against the weight of the evidence. There was ample circumstantial evidence of appellant’s guilt, including evidence leading to the inescapable conclusion that appellant was the person who admitted the theft in a telephone call to the complainant. We reject, as highly speculative, the argu[332]*332ments offered on appeal to explain this chain of evidence. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Tom, Mazzarelli, Lerner and Buckley, 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 on or about November 13, 1997, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that appellant committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of grand larceny in the fourth degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree, and placed her on probation for a period of 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The finding was not against the weight of the evidence. There was ample circumstantial evidence of appellant’s guilt, including evidence leading to the inescapable conclusion that appellant was the person who admitted the theft in a telephone call to the complainant. We reject, as highly speculative, the argu[332]*332ments offered on appeal to explain this chain of evidence. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Tom, Mazzarelli, Lerner and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 A.D.2d 331, 690 N.Y.S.2d 429, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5828, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-ruby-m-nyappdiv-1999.