In re Willy G.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Willy G.

63 A.D.2d 651, 405 N.Y.S.2d 410, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11522

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

DecidedMay 1, 1978

StatusPublished

This text of 63 A.D.2d 651 (In re Willy 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 Willy G., 63 A.D.2d 651, 405 N.Y.S.2d 410, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11522 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to article 7 of the Family Court Act, the appeal is from an order of the Family [652]*652Court, Kings County, dated September 7, 1977, which, upon a determination after a fact-finding hearing that appellant had committed acts which, if done by an adult, would constitute the crime of robbery in the first degree, adjudicated him a juvenile delinquent and placed him with the New York State Division for Youth for a period of three years. Order reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and proceeding remanded to the Family Court for a new fact-finding hearing. As the respondent candidly concedes, it was improper to deny the appellant’s application for an adjournment so that he could obtain police reports which had been previously subpoenaed. These reports contained statements by prosecution witnesses and therefore constituted Rosario material (cf. Matter of Kelvin D., 40 NY2d 895). Martuscello, J. P., Latham, Damiani and Rabin, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to article 7 of the Family Court Act, the appeal is from an order of the Family [652]*652Court, Kings County, dated September 7, 1977, which, upon a determination after a fact-finding hearing that appellant had committed acts which, if done by an adult, would constitute the crime of robbery in the first degree, adjudicated him a juvenile delinquent and placed him with the New York State Division for Youth for a period of three years. Order reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and proceeding remanded to the Family Court for a new fact-finding hearing. As the respondent candidly concedes, it was improper to deny the appellant’s application for an adjournment so that he could obtain police reports which had been previously subpoenaed. These reports contained statements by prosecution witnesses and therefore constituted Rosario material (cf. Matter of Kelvin D., 40 NY2d 895). Martuscello, J. P., Latham, Damiani and Rabin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 A.D.2d 651, 405 N.Y.S.2d 410, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11522, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-willy-g-nyappdiv-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack