In re Zoa B.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Zoa B.

255 A.D.2d 273, 680 N.Y.S.2d 247, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12729

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

DecidedNovember 24, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 255 A.D.2d 273 (In re Zoa B.) 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 Zoa B., 255 A.D.2d 273, 680 N.Y.S.2d 247, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12729 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Mary Bednar, J.), entered on or about October 2, 1997, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that he committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of grand larceny in the fourth degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, and placed him with the Division for Youth for a period of 18 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s findings were based on legally sufficient evidence and were not against the weight of the evidence. Viewing appellant’s conduct as a whole, we find that there was ample evidence that appellant and his companion shared the common purpose of taking the victim’s property (see, Matter of Juan J., 81 NY2d 739; People v Bennett, 161 AD2d 773, lv denied 76 NY2d 852). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Wallach and Rubin, 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 October 2, 1997, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that he committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of grand larceny in the fourth degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, and placed him with the Division for Youth for a period of 18 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s findings were based on legally sufficient evidence and were not against the weight of the evidence. Viewing appellant’s conduct as a whole, we find that there was ample evidence that appellant and his companion shared the common purpose of taking the victim’s property (see, Matter of Juan J., 81 NY2d 739; People v Bennett, 161 AD2d 773, lv denied 76 NY2d 852). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 A.D.2d 273, 680 N.Y.S.2d 247, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12729, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-zoa-b-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack