Opinion
Argued June 28, 1999
October 4, 1999
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 (Segal, J).
ORDERED that the order of disposition is reversed, on the law and the facts, the fact-finding order is vacated, that branch of the appellant's omnibus motion which was to suppress the statement made by him to the police is granted, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Kings County, for a new fact-finding and dispositional hearing if the presentment agency be so advised.
The court erred in denying the appellant's motion to suppress an incriminating statement he gave to the police on the grounds, inter alia, that it was obtained in violation of his Miranda rights ( see, People v. Alexandre, 215 A.D.2d 488; Matter of Lloyd P., 99 A.D.2d 812; Matter of Carlos P., 178 Misc.2d 143). Without the statement, the evidence presented was insufficient to support the court's findings of fact. However, because the presentment agency was entitled to rely on the court's suppression ruling, and the possibility remains that it can present evidence sufficient to meet its evidentiary burden, the matter is remitted for a new fact-finding and dispositional hearing, if the presentment agency be so advised ( see, People v. Gonzalez, 80 N.Y.2d 883: People v. Perkins, 189 A.D.2d 830).
RITTER, J.P., KRAUSMAN, FLORIO, and FEUERSTEIN, JJ., concur.