Matter of Lionel O.

Decision Date21 November 2001
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
PartiesIn the Matter of LIONEL O., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant.<BR>ULSTER COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Respondent.

Cardona, P. J., Crew III, Spain and Rose, JJ., concur.

Lahtinen, J.

Respondent was charged in a juvenile delinquency petition with committing an act which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of obstructing governmental administration in the second degree (Penal Law § 195.05). The charge stemmed from an incident on December 5, 1999 in the Village of Ellenville, Ulster County, when respondent allegedly attempted to physically come between Police Officer Jeffrey Van Asselt and a person that Van Asselt was attempting to arrest, directed obscene language at Van Asselt and refused to leave the scene when instructed to do so. Respondent moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that it was defective (see, Family Ct Act § 311.2). Family Court denied the motion, finding that the petition was "accompanied by sufficient nonhearsay information to support the charge of obstructing governmental administration in the second degree."

Following a fact-finding hearing, Family Court found that respondent committed acts which constituted the crime charged and adjudicated respondent a juvenile delinquent. Respondent was sentenced to a conditional discharge for a period concurrent with the term of a previously imposed order of supervision on an unrelated matter. Respondent appeals arguing that Family Court erred in not dismissing the petition for insufficiency as a matter of law and that the juvenile delinquency finding was against the weight of the evidence.

A challenge by a respondent to the facial sufficiency of a juvenile delinquency petition requires application of a stringent test "to assure that there is a valid and documented basis for subjecting the juvenile to prosecution" (Matter of Neftali D., 85 NY2d 631, 636; see, Matter of Kyle L., 268 AD2d 836, 837). Family Court Act § 311.2 requires that "the allegations of the factual part of the petition, together with those of any supporting depositions which may accompany it, provide reasonable cause to believe that respondent committed the crime or crimes charged" (Family Ct Act § 311.2 [2]) and also that "non-hearsay allegations of the factual part of the petition or of any supporting depositions establish, if true, every element of each crime charged and the respondent's commission thereof" (Family Ct Act § 311.2 [3]). "[T]he...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Tioga Cnty. Attorney v. Alexander CC. (In re Alexander CC.)
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • February 18, 2021
  • In re Jayquan
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • December 31, 2014
    ...83 N.Y.2d at 507–508, 611 N.Y.S.2d 485, 633 N.E.2d 1089; Matter of Shane B., 4 A.D.3d at 651–652, 772 N.Y.S.2d 133; Matter of Lionel O., 288 A.D.2d 705, 706, 732 N.Y.S.2d 720 [2001] ). ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs, and petition LAHTINEN, J.P., GARRY and ROSE......
  • In re Jayquan VV.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • December 31, 2014
    ...N.Y.2d at 507–508, 611 N.Y.S.2d 485, 633 N.E.2d 1089 ; Matter of Shane B., 4 A.D.3d at 651–652, 772 N.Y.S.2d 133 ; Matter of Lionel O., 288 A.D.2d 705, 706, 732 N.Y.S.2d 720 [2001] ).ORDERED that the 123 A.D.3d 1418order is reversed, on the law, without costs, and petition dismissed.LAHTINE......
  • MATTER OF BISHOP, JR. v. Livingston
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • November 21, 2001

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT