In re Wendy J.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Wendy J.

219 A.D.2d 874, 632 N.Y.S.2d 42, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11048

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

DecidedSeptember 29, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 219 A.D.2d 874 (In re Wendy J.) 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 Wendy J., 219 A.D.2d 874, 632 N.Y.S.2d 42, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11048 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: The record supports Family Court’s finding that respondent committed an act that, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of criminal mischief in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 145.00). Evidence that respondent actively assisted in breaking into a house, resulting in damage to that house, is sufficient to establish that respondent intentionally damaged the property of another person (see, People v Gaines, 136 AD2d 731, 734, lv denied 71 NY2d 896; People v Simmons, 99 AD2d 880, 881).

The contention of respondent that the Law Guardian provided ineffective assistance at the dispositional hearing has been rendered moot by the expiration of her placement.

We have examined respondent’s remaining contention and conclude that it lacks merit. (Appeal from Order of Orleans County Family Court, Punch, J. — Juvenile Delinquency.) Present — Green, J. P., Pine, Wesley, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: The record supports Family Court’s finding that respondent committed an act that, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of criminal mischief in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 145.00). Evidence that respondent actively assisted in breaking into a house, resulting in damage to that house, is sufficient to establish that respondent intentionally damaged the property of another person (see, People v Gaines, 136 AD2d 731, 734, lv denied 71 NY2d 896; People v Simmons, 99 AD2d 880, 881).

The contention of respondent that the Law Guardian provided ineffective assistance at the dispositional hearing has been rendered moot by the expiration of her placement.

We have examined respondent’s remaining contention and conclude that it lacks merit. (Appeal from Order of Orleans County Family Court, Punch, J. — Juvenile Delinquency.) Present — Green, J. P., Pine, Wesley, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

219 A.D.2d 874, 632 N.Y.S.2d 42, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11048, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-wendy-j-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack