Matter of Robert D.
| Decision Date | 12 January 2010 |
| Docket Number | 2007-04618.,(Docket No. D-11632-06) |
| Parties | In the Matter of ROBERT D., Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
[69 A.D.3d 715]
In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, the appeal is from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Freeman, J.), dated April 16, 2007, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court dated January 18, 2007, made upon the appellant's admission, finding that the appellant had committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, adjudged him to be a juvenile delinquent and placed him on probation for a period of 12 months. The appeal from the order of disposition brings up for review the fact-finding order and the denial, after a hearing (Spodek, J.), of that branch of the appellant's omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.
Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order of disposition as placed the appellant on probation for a period of 12 months is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,
Ordered that the order of disposition is reversed insofar as reviewed, on the law and the facts, without costs or disbursements, that branch of the appellant's omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence is granted, the fact-finding order is vacated, the petition is denied, the proceeding is dismissed, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Kings County, for further proceedings in accordance with Family Court Act § 375.1.
The appeal from so much of the order of disposition as placed the appellant on probation for a period of 12 months has been rendered academic, as the period of placement has expired (see Matter of Terrance D., 44 AD3d 656 [2007]). However, because there may be collateral consequences resulting from the adjudication of delinquency, that portion of the appeal which brings up for review the fact-finding order and the denial of that branch of the appellant's omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence is not academic (id.).
On March 9, 2006, the appellant was arrested and thereafter the presentment agency filed a petition against him pursuant to Family Court Act article 3. The presentment agency alleged that the appellant committed acts constituting, inter alia, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree (see Penal Law § 220.03). Annexed to the petition was a supporting deposition from the arresting officer, Police Officer Jerry Bowens.
In his supporting deposition, Officer Bowens averred, among other things, that while on patrol, he "observed [the appellant] plac[ing] a canister-like object in his pocket." Officer Bowens added that, after he arrested the appellant and recovered the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Dunbar
...v. Rutledge, 21 A.D.3d 1125, 804 N.Y.S.2d 321). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power (see Matter of Robert D., 69 A.D.3d 714, 716–717, 892 N.Y.S.2d 523), we conclude that the inconsistencies in the testimony presented a credibility question for the hearing court, which de......
-
People v. Fletcher
...People v. Spann, 82 A.D.3d at 1014, 918 N.Y.S.2d 588 ; People v. Thomas, 291 A.D.2d at 463, 738 N.Y.S.2d 357 ; cf. Matter of Robert D., 69 A.D.3d 714, 892 N.Y.S.2d 523 ). A hearing court's determination as to witness credibility is accorded great weight on appeal, as it saw and heard the wi......
-
People v. Mortel
...a traffic violation, we decline, in the exercise of our power of factual review in this case (see CPL 470.15 ; Matter of Robert D., 69 A.D.3d 714, 717, 892 N.Y.S.2d 523 ), to disturb the County Court's determination to credit Trooper Caban's sworn testimony that he personally observed the t......
- People v. Harris