In re William G.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re William G.

42 A.D.2d 732, 346 N.Y.S.2d 741, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3834

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

DecidedJuly 9, 1973

StatusPublished

This text of 42 A.D.2d 732 (In re William G.) 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 William G., 42 A.D.2d 732, 346 N.Y.S.2d 741, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3834 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding which was brought to adjudicate appellant to be a juvenile delinquent, the appeal is from an order of the Family Court, Queens County, dated May 16, 1972 and made after a nonjury trial, which “reduced” the charges to one that appellant is a person in need of supervision, adjudged him to be a person in need of supervision and discharged him “to S 3423/71” (which the parties’ briefs state is another pending “ person in need of supervision ’■’ proceeding). Order reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, and proceeding dismissed on the law (cf. GPL 470.20, subds. 2, 5). Although the order stated that the petition was “reduced”, as above mentioned, the allegation in the petition as to what appellant’s acts in question were was not changed. In our opinion, the violations charged in the juvenile delinquency petition were not established. Rabin, P. J., Hopkins, Munder, Martuscello and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding which was brought to adjudicate appellant to be a juvenile delinquent, the appeal is from an order of the Family Court, Queens County, dated May 16, 1972 and made after a nonjury trial, which “reduced” the charges to one that appellant is a person in need of supervision, adjudged him to be a person in need of supervision and discharged him “to S 3423/71” (which the parties’ briefs state is another pending “ person in need of supervision ’■’ proceeding). Order reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, and proceeding dismissed on the law (cf. GPL 470.20, subds. 2, 5). Although the order stated that the petition was “reduced”, as above mentioned, the allegation in the petition as to what appellant’s acts in question were was not changed. In our opinion, the violations charged in the juvenile delinquency petition were not established. Rabin, P. J., Hopkins, Munder, Martuscello and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

42 A.D.2d 732, 346 N.Y.S.2d 741, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3834, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-william-g-nyappdiv-1973.