In re Samuel A.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Samuel A.

63 A.D.2d 585, 404 N.Y.S.2d 616, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11418

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

DecidedMay 9, 1978

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 63 A.D.2d 585 (In re Samuel A.) 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 Samuel A., 63 A.D.2d 585, 404 N.Y.S.2d 616, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11418 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Family Court, New York County, entered November 3, 1976, adjudicating appellant a juvenile delinquent after a fact-finding hearing, and placing him on probation for a period not to exceed two years, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs and disbursements, and matter remanded for a new fact-finding hearing. The order of disposition appealed from was made pursuant to a fact-finding determination that appellant did acts which, if done by an adult, would constitute the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree. At the fact-finding hearing a motion to suppress the evidence seized from appellant was denied. Appellant could not be found guilty of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree unless the substance he possessed had an aggregate weight of two ounces or more. Weight was established solely through the admission into evidence of a laboratory report. It is the admissibility of this report which is at issue. As no proper foundation was laid with respect to the receipt in evidence of the laboratory report, a new fact-finding hearing must be held. We note that the report was admitted without any demonstration of "the nature of the tests and the procedures utilized by the laboratory, or that the tests were considered to be scientifically reliable” (Matter of Brown v Murphy, 43 AD2d 524, 525). Concur— Lupiano, J. P., Fein, Lane, Markewich and Sullivan, JJ.

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

Order, Family Court, New York County, entered November 3, 1976, adjudicating appellant a juvenile delinquent after a fact-finding hearing, and placing him on probation for a period not to exceed two years, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs and disbursements, and matter remanded for a new fact-finding hearing. The order of disposition appealed from was made pursuant to a fact-finding determination that appellant did acts which, if done by an adult, would constitute the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree. At the fact-finding hearing a motion to suppress the evidence seized from appellant was denied. Appellant could not be found guilty of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree unless the substance he possessed had an aggregate weight of two ounces or more. Weight was established solely through the admission into evidence of a laboratory report. It is the admissibility of this report which is at issue. As no proper foundation was laid with respect to the receipt in evidence of the laboratory report, a new fact-finding hearing must be held. We note that the report was admitted without any demonstration of "the nature of the tests and the procedures utilized by the laboratory, or that the tests were considered to be scientifically reliable” (Matter of Brown v Murphy, 43 AD2d 524, 525). Concur— Lupiano, J. P., Fein, Lane, Markewich and Sullivan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 A.D.2d 585, 404 N.Y.S.2d 616, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11418, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-samuel-a-nyappdiv-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack