Matter of Chris R.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Chris R.

2016 NY Slip Op 8176, 145 A.D.3d 467, 41 N.Y.S.3d 713

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

DecidedDecember 6, 2016

Docket2398A 2398

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 2016 NY Slip Op 8176 (Matter of Chris R.) 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

Matter of Chris R., 2016 NY Slip Op 8176, 145 A.D.3d 467, 41 N.Y.S.3d 713 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Orders of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Adetokunbo O. Fasanya, J.), entered on or about August 27, 2015, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent upon his admission that he committed acts that, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of burglary in the third degree and criminal trespass in the third degree, and placed him with the Close to Home program for a period of 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Although they are reviewable as questions of law (see Matter of Aaron B., 74 AD3d 534, 535 [1st Dept 2010]), appellant’s challenges to his admission do not warrant reversal. The admission was made knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily. The court adequately explained the rights being waived as well as the possible dispositional alternatives, and appellant’s mother’s allocution sufficiently incorporated appellant’s allocution by reference (see Matter of Sean B., 99 AD3d 433 [1st Dept 2012]). We find no conflict of interest on the mother’s part that would warrant vacatur of the admission. The court was under no obligation to ask appellant why he no longer wanted a fact-finding hearing.

Appellant’s challenge to his placement is moot because the period of placement has expired (see Matter of Omari W., 104 AD3d 460 [1st Dept 2013]).

Concur—Richter, J.P., Manzanet-Daniels, Feinman, Kapnick and Gesmer, JJ.

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

Orders of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Adetokunbo O. Fasanya, J.), entered on or about August 27, 2015, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent upon his admission that he committed acts that, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of burglary in the third degree and criminal trespass in the third degree, and placed him with the Close to Home program for a period of 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Although they are reviewable as questions of law (see Matter of Aaron B., 74 AD3d 534, 535 [1st Dept 2010]), appellant’s challenges to his admission do not warrant reversal. The admission was made knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily. The court adequately explained the rights being waived as well as the possible dispositional alternatives, and appellant’s mother’s allocution sufficiently incorporated appellant’s allocution by reference (see Matter of Sean B., 99 AD3d 433 [1st Dept 2012]). We find no conflict of interest on the mother’s part that would warrant vacatur of the admission. The court was under no obligation to ask appellant why he no longer wanted a fact-finding hearing.

Appellant’s challenge to his placement is moot because the period of placement has expired (see Matter of Omari W., 104 AD3d 460 [1st Dept 2013]).

Concur—Richter, J.P., Manzanet-Daniels, Feinman, Kapnick and Gesmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2016 NY Slip Op 8176, 145 A.D.3d 467, 41 N.Y.S.3d 713, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-chris-r-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack