In re William T.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re William T.

53 A.D.2d 536, 384 N.Y.S.2d 459, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13145

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

DecidedJune 10, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 53 A.D.2d 536 (In re William T.) 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 T., 53 A.D.2d 536, 384 N.Y.S.2d 459, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13145 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Orders, Family Court, Bronx County, entered January 3, 1975, adjudicating appellant guilty of acts which, committed by an adult, would constitute crimes, and February 20, 1975, placing him on probation for a period of two years, unanimously reversed, in the exercise of discretion and the interest of justice, without costs and without disbursements, and the case remanded for hearing anew. Appellant did not have a fair trial at the fact-finding hearing. The Judge not alone radiated impatience with the proceedings, but exhibited extreme bias against appellant by references to him in injudicious terms, and by indications that he had [537]*537prejudged appellant’s guilt. Appellant is entitled to a new and fair fact-finding hearing. That hearing being basic to further proceedings, the second hearing, at which disposition was made, falls with it. Concur—Markewich, J. P., Birns, Silverman, Capozzoli and Lane, JJ.

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

Orders, Family Court, Bronx County, entered January 3, 1975, adjudicating appellant guilty of acts which, committed by an adult, would constitute crimes, and February 20, 1975, placing him on probation for a period of two years, unanimously reversed, in the exercise of discretion and the interest of justice, without costs and without disbursements, and the case remanded for hearing anew. Appellant did not have a fair trial at the fact-finding hearing. The Judge not alone radiated impatience with the proceedings, but exhibited extreme bias against appellant by references to him in injudicious terms, and by indications that he had [537]*537prejudged appellant’s guilt. Appellant is entitled to a new and fair fact-finding hearing. That hearing being basic to further proceedings, the second hearing, at which disposition was made, falls with it. Concur—Markewich, J. P., Birns, Silverman, Capozzoli and Lane, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

53 A.D.2d 536, 384 N.Y.S.2d 459, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13145, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-william-t-nyappdiv-1976.