In re Winfred D.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Winfred D.

49 A.D.2d 905, 373 N.Y.S.2d 392, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11141

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

DecidedOctober 14, 1975

StatusPublished

This text of 49 A.D.2d 905 (In re Winfred 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 Winfred D., 49 A.D.2d 905, 373 N.Y.S.2d 392, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11141 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeals from two orders of the Family Court, Queens County, both of which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, after a hearing. Further, the first, dated May 22,1974, directed that appellant be placed in the custody of Lincoln Hall for a period of 18 months, and the second, dated December 3, 1974, placed appellant on probation for one year. Orders affirmed, without costs. The evidence at the fact-finding hearing sustains, beyond a reasonable doubt, the findings of the Family Court that appellant committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of manslaugh[906]*906ter in the first degree (Penal Law, § 125.20) and possession of weapons and dangerous instruments and appliances (Penal Law, § 265.05, subd 9). Rabin, Acting P. J., Hopkins, Christ, Munder and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

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

Appeals from two orders of the Family Court, Queens County, both of which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, after a hearing. Further, the first, dated May 22,1974, directed that appellant be placed in the custody of Lincoln Hall for a period of 18 months, and the second, dated December 3, 1974, placed appellant on probation for one year. Orders affirmed, without costs. The evidence at the fact-finding hearing sustains, beyond a reasonable doubt, the findings of the Family Court that appellant committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of manslaugh[906]*906ter in the first degree (Penal Law, § 125.20) and possession of weapons and dangerous instruments and appliances (Penal Law, § 265.05, subd 9). Rabin, Acting P. J., Hopkins, Christ, Munder and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 A.D.2d 905, 373 N.Y.S.2d 392, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11141, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-winfred-d-nyappdiv-1975.