Robert L, Matter of

Decision Date20 September 1985
Citation129 Misc.2d 742,493 N.Y.S.2d 970
PartiesIn the Matter of ROBERT L, A Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Respondent.
CourtNew York Family Court

Frederick A.O. Schwarz, Jr., Corp. Counsel, New York City (Howard R. Sanders, New York City, of counsel).

Stanley Carlin, New York City, for respondent.

JUDITH BLUM SHEINDLIN, Judge.

The issue presented is whether a juvenile, charged with crimes which constitute misdemeanors only, is entitled to a probable cause hearing in the Family Court.

The Respondent was arraigned on a petition alleging assault in the third degree, menacing and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, all misdemeanors. At that time he was remanded for the statutory period of three days. F.C.A. Section 340.1. On the next court date the presentment agency was ready to proceed with the fact-finding hearing. The Respondent, however, was not ready and requested that the Court conduct a probable cause hearing. This application was denied.

The Court suggested that the fact-finding hearing commence and that at the conclusion of the presentment agency's case the Court would grant the Respondent a continuance. Additionally, the Court stated that if the Respondent wished to recall any witnesses for the purpose of further cross-examination, the Court would direct that that witness be produced. It was noted by the Court that the Respondent would not be prejudiced by this procedure since the quantum of proof necessary on a prima facie case is higher than that required at a probable cause hearing. Furthermore, the permissible cross-examination at a fact-finding hearing is far more extensive than what would be permitted at a probable cause hearing.

Rather than proceeding, as suggested by the Court, the Respondent chose to request an adjournment of the fact-finding hearing.

The Respondent argued that pursuant to F.C.A. Section 325.1, he was entitled to probable cause hearing.

The issue raised involves the interpretation of two sections of the Family Court Act. F.C.A. Section 325.1 states, in pertinent part, that:

1. At the initial appearance, if the respondent denies a charge contained in the petition and the court determines that he shall be detained for more than three days pending a fact-finding hearing, the court shall schedule a probable-cause hearing to determine the issues specified in section 325.3. (Emphasis added).

The above, however, must be read in conjunction with F.C.A. Section 340.1(1) which states:

1. If the respondent is in detention and the highest count in the petition charges the commission of a class A, B, or C felony, the fact-finding hearing shall commence not more than fourteen days after the conclusion of the initial appearance except as provided in subdivision three. If the respondent is in detention and the highest count in such petition is less than a class C felony the fact-finding hearing shall commence no more than three days after the conclusion of the initial appearance except as provided in subdivision three. (Emphasis added).

Since F.C.A. Section 340.1 provides for a fact-finding hearing to commence no more than three days after the initial appearance, when the charges are less than a class C felony, there is no reason to hold a probable cause hearing.

In Schall v. Martin, 467 U.S. 253, 104 S.Ct. 2403, 81 L.Ed.2d 207 (1984), the United States Supreme Court, in deciding the issue of preventive detention for juveniles, discussed detention in cases involving...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Krimstock v. Kelly
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • 18 Septiembre 2002
    ... ... requires a Grand Jury indictment for felony offenses ... , misdemeanor charges may be brought on a prosecutor's information"); In re Robert L., 129 Misc.2d 742, 744, 493 N.Y.S.2d 970, 972 (Fam. Ct. Bronx Co.1985) ("There is no provision for a preliminary or probable cause hearing under ... 1148 ("Each of our due process cases has recognized, either explicitly or implicitly, that because minimum procedural requirements are a matter of federal law, they are not diminished by the fact that the State may have specified its own procedures that it may deem adequate for determining ... ...
  • Christopher B., Matter of
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 16 Julio 1993
    ...of Jeffrey V., 185 A.D.2d 240, 585 N.Y.S.2d 782, appeal granted 81 N.Y.2d 705, 595 N.Y.S.2d 399, 611 N.E.2d 300; Matter of Robert L., 129 Misc.2d 742, 493 N.Y.S.2d 970; see generally, Matter of Snap, 125 Misc.2d 314, 479 N.Y.S.2d 332; Besharov, 1985 Supp.Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Co......
  • Jeffrey V., Matter of
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 12 Octubre 1993
    ...[2] did not apply when, as here, all of the charges in the petition are less serious than a class C felony (accord, Matter of Robert L., 129 Misc.2d 742, 493 N.Y.S.2d 970). The fact-finding hearing then began with the direct examination of the complainant by the presentment agency. She rela......
  • Jeffrey V., Matter of
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 6 Julio 1992
    ... ... Guggenheim v. [185 A.D.2d 241] Mucci, 32 N.Y.2d 307, 313, 344 N.Y.S.2d 944, 298 N.E.2d 109). The appellant was not prejudiced by this procedure (see, Matter of Robert L., 129 Misc.2d 742, 493 N.Y.S.2d 970) and, further, was not deprived of his constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel (cf., Matter of Milton D., 72 A.D.2d 812, 421 N.Y.S.2d 909) ...         Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the petitioner, we find that ... ...

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