People v. Losell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Losell

85 A.D.2d 920, 446 N.Y.S.2d 777, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16764

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

DecidedDecember 23, 1981

StatusPublished

This text of 85 A.D.2d 920 (People v. Losell) 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

People v. Losell, 85 A.D.2d 920, 446 N.Y.S.2d 777, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16764 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously modified, on the laiv, and, as modified, affirmed, in accordance with the following memorandum: The court sentenced defendant to probation for three years following his plea of guilty to endangering the welfare of a child (Penal Law, § 260.10, subd 1) arising out of his cohabitation with a 13-year-old girl who subsequently became pregnant. As one of the conditions of probation, the court required that defendant: “Pay confinement costs and child support surrounding the situation through Niagara County Probation Department as directed by the Probation Officer.” Section 65.10 (subd 2, par [f]) of the Penal Law permits a court, as a condition of probation, to require that a defendant “[s]upport his dependents and meet other family responsibilities”. Without an adjudication of paternity, however, the court may not direct defendant to pay the hospital confinement costs and support for the infant child and the condition is stricken. (Appeal from judgment of Niagara County Court, Hannigan, J. — endangering welfare of child.) Present — Simons, J. P., Callahan, Doerr, Denman and Moule, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously modified, on the laiv, and, as modified, affirmed, in accordance with the following memorandum: The court sentenced defendant to probation for three years following his plea of guilty to endangering the welfare of a child (Penal Law, § 260.10, subd 1) arising out of his cohabitation with a 13-year-old girl who subsequently became pregnant. As one of the conditions of probation, the court required that defendant: “Pay confinement costs and child support surrounding the situation through Niagara County Probation Department as directed by the Probation Officer.” Section 65.10 (subd 2, par [f]) of the Penal Law permits a court, as a condition of probation, to require that a defendant “[s]upport his dependents and meet other family responsibilities”. Without an adjudication of paternity, however, the court may not direct defendant to pay the hospital confinement costs and support for the infant child and the condition is stricken. (Appeal from judgment of Niagara County Court, Hannigan, J. — endangering welfare of child.) Present — Simons, J. P., Callahan, Doerr, Denman and Moule, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

85 A.D.2d 920, 446 N.Y.S.2d 777, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16764, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-losell-nyappdiv-1981.