In re Thomas L.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Thomas L.

4 A.D.3d 295, 771 N.Y.S.2d 663, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2002

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

DecidedFebruary 26, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 4 A.D.3d 295 (In re Thomas L.) 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 L., 4 A.D.3d 295, 771 N.Y.S.2d 663, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2002 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Myrna Martinez-Perez, J.), entered on or about August 8, 2002, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that he committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of obstructing governmental administration in the second degree and resisting arrest, and imposed a conditional discharge 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. Appellant’s disruptive conduct obstructed an official police function that was still in progress (see Penal Law § 195.05; Matter of Davan L., 91 NY2d 88 [1997]; People v Tarver, 188 AD2d 938 [1992], lv denied 81 NY2d 893 [1993]). Since appellant’s arrest for obstructing governmental administration was authorized, his struggle to avoid being handcuffed and placed in a police car constituted resisting arrest (Penal Law § 205.30). Concur— Nardelli, J.E, Andrias, Rosenberger and Friedman, JJ.

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

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Myrna Martinez-Perez, J.), entered on or about August 8, 2002, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that he committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of obstructing governmental administration in the second degree and resisting arrest, and imposed a conditional discharge 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. Appellant’s disruptive conduct obstructed an official police function that was still in progress (see Penal Law § 195.05; Matter of Davan L., 91 NY2d 88 [1997]; People v Tarver, 188 AD2d 938 [1992], lv denied 81 NY2d 893 [1993]). Since appellant’s arrest for obstructing governmental administration was authorized, his struggle to avoid being handcuffed and placed in a police car constituted resisting arrest (Penal Law § 205.30). Concur— Nardelli, J.E, Andrias, Rosenberger and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 A.D.3d 295, 771 N.Y.S.2d 663, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2002, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-thomas-l-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack