From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Bobby Jo F.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Dec 31, 2003
2 A.D.3d 1472 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

CAF 03-00518.

December 31, 2003.

Appeal from an order of Family Court, Genesee County (Adams, J.), entered February 20, 2003, which adjudged that respondent is a juvenile delinquent and placed respondent in the custody of the Commissioner of Social Services of Genesee County for a period of 12 months.

SUSAN B. MARRIS, MANLIUS, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

JOHN L. RIZZO, COUNTY ATTORNEY, BATAVIA (DAVID J. PAJAK OF COUNSEL) PETITIONER-RESPONDENT PRO SE.

Before: PRESENT: PIGOTT, JR., P.J., WISNER, KEHOE, LAWTON, AND HAYES, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Respondent appeals from an order adjudicating him a juvenile delinquent upon a finding that he committed an act that, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of forcible touching (Penal Law § 130.52). We reject his contention that the petition is facially deficient because the supporting depositions are not attached to it. "Family Court Act § 311.2 measures the sufficiency of a petition by the sum of its two parts: the verified petition * * * and any supporting depositions filed[, as here,] with the petition" ( Matter of Neftali D., 85 N.Y.2d 631, 635; see Matter of Charles BB., 277 A.D.2d 756).

Respondent also contends that the petition is facially deficient because it fails to allege lack of consent as an element of the offense ( see Penal Law § 130.05). We disagree. The complainant's statement, affirmed under penalty of perjury and on file with Family Court, alleges that the complainant is 16 years old, and thus she is deemed incapable of consent ( see § 130.05 [3] [a]). We further reject respondent's contention that the petition is facially deficient because it fails to allege with sufficient specificity when the alleged forcible touching occurred. Because the petition as amplified by the bill of particulars charges acts allegedly committed during a designated time period, it conforms to the requirements of Family Ct Act § 311.1 (3)(g) and thus is facially sufficient ( see People v. Morris, 61 N.Y.2d 290, 294).

Finally, we conclude that the evidence of lack of consent is legally sufficient ( see generally People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495). Petitioner established at the fact-finding hearing that the complainant is less than 17 years old (see Penal Law § 130.05 [b]; [3] [a]).


Summaries of

In re Bobby Jo F.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Dec 31, 2003
2 A.D.3d 1472 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

In re Bobby Jo F.

Case Details

Full title:MATTER OF BOBBY JO F., RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. GENESEE COUNTY ATTORNEY…

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

Date published: Dec 31, 2003

Citations

2 A.D.3d 1472 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
770 N.Y.S.2d 522

Citing Cases

In Matter of Uriel M.

Respondent moves for dismissal of this single count petition on the ground that there are no non-hearsay…