In re Thomas A.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Thomas A.

200 A.D.2d 425, 608 N.Y.S.2d 803, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 192

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

DecidedJanuary 11, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 200 A.D.2d 425 (In re Thomas 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 Thomas A., 200 A.D.2d 425, 608 N.Y.S.2d 803, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 192 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Final order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Gina Martinez, J.), entered June 22, 1993, following a fact-finding hearing which determined that respondent had committed acts, which if committed by an adult would constitute criminal possession of a controlled substance in the 7th degree, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent’s counsel consented to adjournment of the initial appearance when respondent’s parents and the presentment agency’s attorney were unavailable. Thus, there can be no dismissal for violation of Family Court Act § 320.2 (1) (see, Matter of Hiram D., 189 AD2d 730, 732). The signed certification of the laboratory report by the chemist attached to the petition, together with the signed deposition of the arresting police officer established every element of the crime charged (see, Matter of Jahron S., 79 NY2d 632; compare, Matter of Rodney J., 194 AD2d 342, affd 83 NY2d 503). Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Asch, Rubin and Nardelli, JJ.

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

—Final order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Gina Martinez, J.), entered June 22, 1993, following a fact-finding hearing which determined that respondent had committed acts, which if committed by an adult would constitute criminal possession of a controlled substance in the 7th degree, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent’s counsel consented to adjournment of the initial appearance when respondent’s parents and the presentment agency’s attorney were unavailable. Thus, there can be no dismissal for violation of Family Court Act § 320.2 (1) (see, Matter of Hiram D., 189 AD2d 730, 732). The signed certification of the laboratory report by the chemist attached to the petition, together with the signed deposition of the arresting police officer established every element of the crime charged (see, Matter of Jahron S., 79 NY2d 632; compare, Matter of Rodney J., 194 AD2d 342, affd 83 NY2d 503). Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Asch, Rubin and Nardelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

200 A.D.2d 425, 608 N.Y.S.2d 803, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 192, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-thomas-a-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack