From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Michael

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 3, 1994
201 A.D.2d 288 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

February 3, 1994

Appeal from the Family Court, New York County (Edward M. Kaufman, J.).


Appellant's contention that his right to a speedy fact-finding hearing was violated when the court granted a seven-day adjournment is without merit. Family Court Act § 340.1 (4) (a) provides that the fact-finding hearing may be adjourned by the presentment agency or by the court, on its own motion, for up to 30 days beyond the 60-day period for "good cause shown." Here, on the fifty-ninth day after appellant's initial appearance, the presentment agency requested a four-day adjournment because it learned, just two days before, that its witness was on vacation. The hearing was ultimately adjourned a total of seven days; the extra three days added to accommodate the schedule of appellant's law guardian. The seven-day delay, which was minimal, was proper under the circumstances (see, Matter of Levar A., 200 A.D.2d 443), and the court did not err in finding that the presentment agency established good cause for the adjournment (see, Matter of Bryant J., 195 A.D.2d 463).

Appellant also claims that the evidence at the fact-finding hearing failed to prove that he committed criminal mischief in the fourth degree because the element of "damage to property" was not established. While damage to property must be proven in order to sustain a conviction for criminal mischief in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 145.00), it is not necessary to prove any dollar value of damage (People v. Misevis, 155 A.D.2d 729, 731, affd 76 N.Y.2d 777). Review of the record indicates that there was proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant had committed an act which, if done by an adult, would have constituted the crime of criminal mischief in the fourth degree inasmuch as the testimony by the officer that he observed appellant "carving — slicing the end — the arm off a subway bench with a razor knife" necessarily proved that appellant was engaged in damaging the bench by cutting into it.

Concur — Carro, J.P., Ellerin, Rubin, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.


Summaries of

Matter of Michael

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 3, 1994
201 A.D.2d 288 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

Matter of Michael

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of MICHAEL M., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent…

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

Date published: Feb 3, 1994

Citations

201 A.D.2d 288 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
607 N.Y.S.2d 277

Citing Cases

Matter of Anthony H

There is no requirement in the statute that the presentment agency have every essential witness available to…

Omobolanle O. v. Kevin J.

The record establishes that respondent's actions during a July 2013 incident constituted the family offense…