In re Samuel E.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Samuel E.

266 A.D.2d 106, 698 N.Y.S.2d 853, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11661

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

DecidedNovember 18, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 266 A.D.2d 106 (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., 266 A.D.2d 106, 698 N.Y.S.2d 853, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11661 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Clark Richardson, J.), entered on or about July 24, 1998, 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 criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts), criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and loitering in the first degree, and placed him with the New York State Division for Youth for a period of 3 years, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s finding was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. We see no reason to disturb the court’s determinations concerning identification. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Nardelli, 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 (Clark Richardson, J.), entered on or about July 24, 1998, 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 criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts), criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and loitering in the first degree, and placed him with the New York State Division for Youth for a period of 3 years, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s finding was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. We see no reason to disturb the court’s determinations concerning identification. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Nardelli, Mazzarelli, Lerner and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

266 A.D.2d 106, 698 N.Y.S.2d 853, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11661, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-samuel-e-nyappdiv-1999.