You are here: / / A PERSON ADJUDICATED A YOUTHFUL OFFENDER CAN REFUSE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS...
, , ,

A PERSON ADJUDICATED A YOUTHFUL OFFENDER CAN REFUSE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT THE CHARGES, THE POLICE INVESTIGATION, THE PLEA AND THE ADJUDICATION, BUT CANNOT REFUSE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT THE UNDERLYING FACTS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant’s youthful offender adjudication allows defendant to refuse to answer questions about the charges, the police investigation, whether she pled guilty and whether a youthful offender adjudication was made, but defendant cannot refuse to answer questions about the facts underlying the adjudication. Here plaintiff sued defendant for personal injuries stemming from a fight with defendant, which was the basis for the youthful offender adjudication:

“[A] person adjudicated a youthful offender may refuse to answer questions regarding the charges and police investigation, whether he or she pleaded guilty, and whether a youthful offender adjudication was made” … . However, “not all of the information contained within the protected records is necessarily privileged” … . The statutory grant of confidentiality afforded to official records and the information contained therein does not extend to the facts underlying the incident which gave rise to the youthful offender adjudication (see CPL 720.35[2]). Thus, an eligible youth may not refuse, on grounds of confidentiality, to answer questions about the facts underlying the subject incident, even though those facts also form the basis of his or her youthful offender adjudication … . Arma v East Islip Union Free Sch. Dist., 2019 NY Slip Op 03019, Second Dept 4-24-19

 

You might also like
Action Should Not Have Been Dismissed Pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a)(4)—Action Was Not “Sufficiently Similar” to Pending Action
CHAIN BETWEEN TWO POLES NOT AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION, SCHOOL’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS TRIP AND FALL CASE PROPERLY DENIED.
PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1304 IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE ‘COVID-19’ EXECUTIVE ORDER GENERALLY TOLLING THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DID NOT EXTEND THE TIME FOR FILING A PETITION TO VALIDATE A DESIGNATING PETITION, WHICH IS GOVERNED BY ANOTHER ‘COVID-19’ EXECUTIVE ORDER (SECOND DEPT). ​
Cooperative Board’s Denial of Plaintiff’s Application to Sell His Shares in the Cooperative Was Not Tainted by Discriminatory Considerations—Denial Protected by the Business Judgment Rule
Motions for Findings Allowing Child to Petition for Special Immigrant Juvenile Status Should Have Been Granted
PLAINTIFF’S SISTER WRONGLY IMPEACHED BY QUESTIONS ABOUT HER CRIMINAL HISTORY AND BAD ACTS, TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD HAVE SET ASIDE THE VERDICT.
PLAINTIFF HOMEOWNER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO PAYMENTS MADE TO AN UNLICENSED HOME IMPROVEMENT CONTRACTOR FOR WORK PERFORMED SOLELY ON THE GROUND THAT THE CONTRACTOR WAS UNLICENSED (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUBMIT EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO PIERCE THE CORPORATE VEIL AND... NEWSPAPER ASSEMBLY AND DELIVERY PERSON WAS AN EMPLOYEE ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT...