 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1
.
OPINION
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
FAMILY COURT APPEARANCE DISMISS FAMILY COURT ACT SPEEDY FACT-FINDING RESPONDENT VIOLATION PRESENTMENT AGENCY PREJUDICE MATTER JUVENILE COMMENTARIES DELINQUENCY PROCEEDING CHARGES ADJUDICATION STATUTE APPELLATE FAILURE DELAY HOLDING PROPER REFILE REFILING ADJOURNMENTS NY2D JURISDICTION PRACTICE COMMENTARIES |
IN THE MATTER OF ROBERT O. (ANONYMOUS), APPELLANT.
87 N.Y.2d 9, 660 N.E.2d 1108, 637 N.Y.S.2d 329
December 5, 1995
2 No. 266 (1995 NY Int. 271)
Decided December 5, 1995
_________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
Richard C. Schisler, for Appellant.
Victor A. Civitillo, for Respondent.
The Legal Aid Society; and City of New York, amici curiae.
TITONE, J.:
In this juvenile delinquency proceeding we are called upon to
determine the consequences of a failure to hold the "initial
appearance" within 10 days of the filing of the delinquency petition
as required by Family Court Act § 340.1. We conclude that this flaw is
not alone a reason to foreclose a timely prosecution of the underlying
charges.
On March 2, 1993, the presentment agency filed a petition alleging
that respondent committed acts, which if committed by an adult, would
constitute the crimes of burglary in the first degree, burglary in the
second degree and petit larceny. The charges stem from respondent's
alleged breaking and entering into a residence while armed and his
theft of property therefrom. Respondent's initial appearance on the
petition was not held until March 29, 1993.
Respondent then moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that the
initial appearance was not held within 10 days of the date the
petition was filed as required by Family Court Act § 320.2(1) and no
good cause was shown for the delay. The presentment agency conceded
that dismissal of that petition was proper since no good cause had
been shown, but argued that dismissal should be without prejudice to
refile the petition. Family Court granted the motion and dismissed the
petition on April 26, 1993.(n 1) On May 3, 1993, the presentment
agency filed a an identical petition against respondent. Respondent's
appearance on the second petition was held on May 11, 1993.
Respondent then moved to dismiss the second petition pursuant to
Family Court Act §§ 310.2, 320.2 and 332.1(8) on the ground that his
SNIPPETS:
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
