In re Willie D.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Willie D.

167 A.D.2d 941, 563 N.Y.S.2d 701, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14524

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

DecidedNovember 16, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 167 A.D.2d 941 (In re Willie D.) 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 Willie D., 167 A.D.2d 941, 563 N.Y.S.2d 701, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14524 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously reversed on the law and matter remitted to Monroe County Family Court for further proceedings, in accordance with the following memorandum: Family Court erred by failing to hold a hearing on respondent’s motion to suppress evidence. Family Court did not deny respondent’s motion on either of the two grounds specified in CPL 710.60 (3) but, rather, resolved factual issues against respondent based upon the motion papers and argument of counsel. That was error. Although respondent entered an admission, the denial of his suppression motion is preserved for review (Family Ct Act § 330.2 [6]). (Appeal from order of Monroe County Family Court, Sciolino, J.—juvenile delinquency.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Denman, Green and Balio, JJ.

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

Order unanimously reversed on the law and matter remitted to Monroe County Family Court for further proceedings, in accordance with the following memorandum: Family Court erred by failing to hold a hearing on respondent’s motion to suppress evidence. Family Court did not deny respondent’s motion on either of the two grounds specified in CPL 710.60 (3) but, rather, resolved factual issues against respondent based upon the motion papers and argument of counsel. That was error. Although respondent entered an admission, the denial of his suppression motion is preserved for review (Family Ct Act § 330.2 [6]). (Appeal from order of Monroe County Family Court, Sciolino, J.—juvenile delinquency.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Denman, Green and Balio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

167 A.D.2d 941, 563 N.Y.S.2d 701, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14524, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-willie-d-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack