From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In the Matter of Rosalis D

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 5, 2003
305 A.D.2d 407 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

2002-06296

May 5, 2003

In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, the appeal is from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Queens County (Lubow, J.), dated June 25, 2002, as, in effect, amended by an order of the same court, dated February 28, 2003, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court, dated March 15, 2002, made after a hearing, and upon her admission, finding that the appellant had committed an act, which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crime of menacing in the third degree, adjudicated the appellant to be a juvenile delinquent, and placed her with the New York State Office of Children and Family Services until March 5, 2003. The appeal brings up for review the fact-finding order dated March 15, 2002.

Peter Wilner, Jamaica, N.Y., for appellant.

Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Larry A. Sonnenshein and Jane L. Gordon of counsel), for respondent.

Before: FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., NANCY E. SMITH, LEO F. McGINITY, and ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the appeal from so much of the order of disposition, as, in effect, amended by the order dated February 28, 2003, which placed the appellant with the New York State Office of Children and Family Services until March 5, 2003, is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,

ORDERED that the order of disposition is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.

The appellant failed to preserve her challenge to the legal sufficiency of her admission for appellate review (see People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 665; Matter of Haile B., 252 A.D.2d 497; Matter of Gregory B., 242 A.D.2d 296). In any event, the admission was legally sufficient to establish that the appellant committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crime of menacing in the third degree (see Penal Law § 120.15). Contrary to the appellant's contention, the admission demonstrated that the complainant had a well-founded fear of serious physical injury (compare Matter of Michael H., 294 A.D.2d 364; see Matter of Steven W., 294 A.D.2d 370; Matter of Akida L., 170 A.D.2d 680).

The appellant's challenge to her placement with the New York State Office of Children and Family Services until March 5, 2003, is academic, since the placement period has expired (see Matter of Yuan Tung C., 296 A.D.2d 323; Matter of Anthony G., 247 A.D.2d 792; Matter of Christopher H., 198 A.D.2d 120).

The appellant's remaining contention has been rendered academic.

SANTUCCI, J.P., SMITH, McGINITY and SCHMIDT, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

In the Matter of Rosalis D

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 5, 2003
305 A.D.2d 407 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

In the Matter of Rosalis D

Case Details

Full title:IN THE MATTER OF ROSALIS D. (Anonymous), appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: May 5, 2003

Citations

305 A.D.2d 407 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
758 N.Y.S.2d 535

Citing Cases

In re Andre

ng depositions, which were executed in accordance with CPL 100.30 (1) (d), are sufficient for the purposes of…

Mtr. of Willie

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the presentment agency ( see Matter of David H., 69 NY2d…