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: CHEIKH F. (Anonymous), appellant.
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.), dated May 26, 1998, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court, dated March 11, 1998, made after a hearing, finding that the appellant had committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crime of criminally negligent homicide, adjudged him to be a juvenile delinquent and placed him with the Commissioner of Social Services for placement with Boystown, in Nebraska, for a period of 18 months. The appeal brings up for review the fact-finding order dated March 11, 1998, and the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the appellant's omnibus motion which was to suppress a statement made by him to law enforcement authorities.
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 petition is dismissed.
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, 626 N.Y.S.2d 520; Matter of Lloyd P., 99 A.D.2d 812, 472 N.Y.S.2d 142; Matter of Carlos P., 178 Misc.2d 143, 681 N.Y.S.2d 724). 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, 587 N.Y.S.2d 607, 600 N.E.2d 238; People v. Perkins, 189 A.D.2d 830, 592 N.Y.S.2d 752).
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Thank you for your feedback!
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: October 04, 1999
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)