In re Samuel E.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Samuel E.

240 A.D.2d 251, 658 N.Y.S.2d 306, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6523

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

DecidedJune 12, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 240 A.D.2d 251 (In re Samuel E.) 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 E., 240 A.D.2d 251, 658 N.Y.S.2d 306, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6523 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of disposi[252]*252tion, Family Court, Bronx County (Bruce Kaplan, J.), entered on or about February 3, 1997, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, following a fact-finding determination that he committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of robbery in the second degree, assault in the second degree, and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, and placed him with the Division for Youth until May 25, 1998, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The filing of a copy of the sworn deposition of the victim rather than the original deposition did not render the petition jurisdictionally defective (see, Matter of Garrett T., 224 AD2d 308). The CPLR, which is applicable in the absence of any specific relevant provision in the Family Court Act (see, Matter of Kareem C., 220 AD2d 283, 285; Family Ct Act § 165), expressly permits service and filing of copies of affidavits (CPLR 2101 [e]). Moreover, the document had been signed, and therefore does not, on its face, constitute hearsay (Matter of Piterson C., 159 Misc 2d 499, 500). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Rubin and Andrias, JJ.

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

Order of disposi[252]*252tion, Family Court, Bronx County (Bruce Kaplan, J.), entered on or about February 3, 1997, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, following a fact-finding determination that he committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of robbery in the second degree, assault in the second degree, and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, and placed him with the Division for Youth until May 25, 1998, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The filing of a copy of the sworn deposition of the victim rather than the original deposition did not render the petition jurisdictionally defective (see, Matter of Garrett T., 224 AD2d 308). The CPLR, which is applicable in the absence of any specific relevant provision in the Family Court Act (see, Matter of Kareem C., 220 AD2d 283, 285; Family Ct Act § 165), expressly permits service and filing of copies of affidavits (CPLR 2101 [e]). Moreover, the document had been signed, and therefore does not, on its face, constitute hearsay (Matter of Piterson C., 159 Misc 2d 499, 500). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Rubin and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

240 A.D.2d 251, 658 N.Y.S.2d 306, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6523, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-samuel-e-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack