In re Stephen F.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Stephen F.

300 A.D.2d 52, 750 N.Y.S.2d 500, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11734

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

DecidedDecember 5, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 300 A.D.2d 52 (In re Stephen F.) 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 Stephen F., 300 A.D.2d 52, 750 N.Y.S.2d 500, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11734 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Mary Bednar, J.), entered November 14, 2001, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that he had committed acts which, if committed by an adult; would constitute the crimes of sexual abuse in the second and third degrees, and placed him on probation for a period of 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s finding was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. The evidence warrants the conclusion that appellant’s conduct was for the purpose of sexual gratification. Regardless of how the classroom [53]*53encounter was initiated, it escalated into unwanted touching of the victim’s breasts and attempts to touch her genitalia and buttocks, for which there was no innocent explanation (see Matter of Joel H., 279 AD2d 266). Concur — Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Buckley, Sullivan and Lerner, 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 November 14, 2001, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that he had committed acts which, if committed by an adult; would constitute the crimes of sexual abuse in the second and third degrees, and placed him on probation for a period of 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s finding was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. The evidence warrants the conclusion that appellant’s conduct was for the purpose of sexual gratification. Regardless of how the classroom [53]*53encounter was initiated, it escalated into unwanted touching of the victim’s breasts and attempts to touch her genitalia and buttocks, for which there was no innocent explanation (see Matter of Joel H., 279 AD2d 266). Concur — Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Buckley, Sullivan and Lerner, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

300 A.D.2d 52, 750 N.Y.S.2d 500, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11734, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-stephen-f-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack