Opinion
2015-03-31
In re STEPHAUAN P., A Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant. Presentment Agency.
Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Diane Pazar of counsel), for appellant. Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Susan P. Greenberg of counsel), for presentment agency.
Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Diane Pazar of counsel), for appellant. Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Susan P. Greenberg of counsel), for presentment agency.
Orders of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Jeanette Ruiz, J., at summary denial of suppression motion; Peter J. Passidomo, J., at speedy trial motion, fact-finding hearing and disposition), entered on or about October 21, 2013, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent upon fact-finding determinations that he committed acts that, if committed by an adult, would constitute two counts of attempted robbery in the second degree, and placed him on probation for a period of 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Appellant waived his right to challenge the adjournment beyond the prescribed 60 day period since he consented to the adjournment ( see Matter of Irene B., 244 A.D.2d 226, 664 N.Y.S.2d 42 [1st Dept.1997]lv. denied91 N.Y.2d 809, 670 N.Y.S.2d 403, 693 N.E.2d 750 [1998] ). The record supports the motion court's finding that there was no effective subsequent withdrawal or modification of appellant's consent.
The petition challenged by appellant on appeal was not jurisdictionally defective. By alleging that appellant and a companion tugged and grabbed at the victim's book bag and reached into the victim's pockets until one of the assailants finally said, “Let him go,” the petition sufficiently alleged an attempted forcible taking ( see People v. Smith, 22 N.Y.3d 1092, 982 N.Y.S.2d 437, 5 N.E.3d 584 [2014] ).
The court properly concluded that the police identification procedure was merely confirmatory ( see Matter of Raul F., 186 A.D.2d 74, 588 N.Y.S.2d 546 [1st Dept.1992] ). In any event, appellant was not prejudiced by the absence of a Wade hearing.