In re Yiell C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Yiell C.

253 A.D.2d 718, 679 N.Y.S.2d 364, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9767

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

DecidedSeptember 29, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 253 A.D.2d 718 (In re Yiell C.) 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 Yiell C., 253 A.D.2d 718, 679 N.Y.S.2d 364, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9767 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Mary Bednar, J.), entered on or about December 13, 1996, which adjudicated ap[719]*719pellant a juvenile delinquent upon a fact-finding determination that he committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of robbery in the first and second degrees and assault in the second degree, and placed him in the custody of the Division for Youth for 18 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The fact-finding determination was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. Appellant’s intent to appropriate the beeper from the complainant was adequately demonstrated by his stated demand that the complainant turn it over, a demand lacking any non-larcenous explanation. Defendant’s conduct in abandoning the beeper was not inconsistent with the original larcenous intent (People v Smith, 140 AD2d 259, lv denied 72 NY2d 924). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Nardelli, Rubin, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Mary Bednar, J.), entered on or about December 13, 1996, which adjudicated ap[719]*719pellant a juvenile delinquent upon a fact-finding determination that he committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of robbery in the first and second degrees and assault in the second degree, and placed him in the custody of the Division for Youth for 18 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The fact-finding determination was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. Appellant’s intent to appropriate the beeper from the complainant was adequately demonstrated by his stated demand that the complainant turn it over, a demand lacking any non-larcenous explanation. Defendant’s conduct in abandoning the beeper was not inconsistent with the original larcenous intent (People v Smith, 140 AD2d 259, lv denied 72 NY2d 924). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Nardelli, Rubin, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

253 A.D.2d 718, 679 N.Y.S.2d 364, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9767, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-yiell-c-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack