Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: ROBERT S., A Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant. Presentment Agency
Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Gloria Sosa-Lintner, J.), entered on or about April 11, 1997, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that appellant had committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of robbery in the first, second and third degrees, attempted robbery in the first, second and third degrees, criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, petit larceny, attempted petit larceny, and menacing in the second and third degrees, and placed him with the Division for Youth for a period not to exceed 3 years, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
When the presentment agency inadvertently failed to produce a requested 911 tape, and announced that it expected to locate the tape shortly, the court properly denied appellant's motion to dismiss, made on the ground of appellant's right to a speedy fact-finding hearing, since such hearing commenced (see, Matter of Paublo C., 246 A.D.2d 352, 667 N.Y.S.2d 713). Instead, the court took appropriate action (see, Family Ct. Act § 331.6[1] ) by proceeding with the hearing and offering to permit the complainant to be recalled for further cross-examination upon production of the tape. When appellant made no further mention of the tape, he abandoned his Rosario claim (People v. Graves, 85 N.Y.2d 1024, 1027, 630 N.Y.S.2d 972, 654 N.E.2d 1220).
The court correctly determined that there was good cause to adjourn appellant's fact-finding hearing for four days beyond the statutory 14-day time period (Family Court Act § 340.1[1], [4] ). The ongoing pretrial hearings had to be completed prior to the commencement of the fact-finding hearing (see, Matter of Jesus M., 255 A.D.2d 220, 680 N.Y.S.2d 234; Matter of William A., 219 A.D.2d 494, 631 N.Y.S.2d 314). Moreover, the circumstance that part of the delay was occasioned by pretrial proceedings involving only appellant's co-respondent does not undermine the propriety of the finding of good cause (see, Matter of Jesus M., supra).
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: March 16, 1999
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)