You are here: / LABOR LAW 241 (6) CAUSE OF ACTION STEMMING FROM EYE INJURY ASSOCIATED WITH...

Search Results

/

LABOR LAW 241 (6) CAUSE OF ACTION STEMMING FROM EYE INJURY ASSOCIATED WITH USE OF A NAIL GUN PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT.

Plaintiff was injured when using a nail gun. A nail ricocheted and struck his eye. The Fourth Department determined defendant was not entitled to summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law 241 (6) cause of action because eye protection was required by the Industrial Code, and plaintiff was not entitled to summary judgment because there were questions of fact whether eye protection was available to the plaintiff. The court noted that the risk of eye injury from use of a nail gun is more apparent than any such risk associated with manual hammering:

We reject defendant’s contention that it was entitled to summary judgment pursuant to this Court’s holding in Herman v Lancaster Homes (145 AD2d 926, 926, lv denied 74 NY2d 601). Unlike the circumstances in Herman, plaintiff herein was not manually hammering nails but, rather, was operating a pneumatic nail gun when a nail ricocheted and penetrated his right eye. In our view, “the dangers a nail gun present[s] to the eyes are more apparent tha[n] the dangers of manual hammering” … and the plaintiff’s use of the nail gun clearly falls within the regulatory definition of engaging “in any other operation which may endanger the eyes” (12 NYCRR 23-1.8 [a]). Contrary to defendant’s further contention, based upon the record before us, we conclude that plaintiff established as a matter of law that the regulation applies, and that defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact on that point … .

We agree with defendant, however, that the court erred in granting plaintiff’s motion inasmuch as defendant raised triable issues of fact whether it had violated 12 NYCRR 23-1.8 (a) and whether plaintiff was comparatively negligent … . Specifically, there is a triable issue of fact whether defendant provided eye protection, or made such available, to plaintiff on the day of the accident and, if so, whether plaintiff was comparatively negligent in refusing to use the eye protection. Summary judgment to plaintiff is therefore inappropriate … . We note, in any event, that “[e]ven assuming, arguendo, that plaintiff[] established that defendant violated [12 NYCRR 23-1.8 (a)], any such violation does not establish negligence as a matter of law but is merely some evidence to be considered on the question of a defendant’s negligence’ ” … . Quiros v Five Star Improvements, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 09713, 4th Dept 12-31-15

LABOR LAW (241 (6) CAUSE OF ACTION STEMMING FROM USE OF NAIL GUN)/NAIL GUN (LABOR LAW 241 (6) CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON EYE INJURY)

/ , ,

PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT IN AN ARTICLE 10 TRIAL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; A TRIABLE ISSUE HAD BEEN RAISED CONCERNING PETITIONER’S ABILITY TO CONTROL HIS SEXUAL CONDUCT.

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, reversing Supreme Court, determined that petitioner-sex-offender’s motion for a directed verdict in an Article 10 trial should not have been granted. Petitioner had been deemed a dangerous sex offender and was committed to a secure facility. In the instant proceeding, petitioner sought release under a regimen of strict and intensive supervision and treatment. The state presented evidence petitioner had been diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder, paraphila otherwise specified, and cannabis dependence.  The majority concluded that the state’s expert, Dr. Prince, had presented sufficient additional evidence, including a history of defendant’s sexual behavior, his response to treatment, and the results of psychological tests, to raise a triable issue of fact whether defendant had serious difficulty in controlling difficulty controlling his sexual conduct:

When coupled with the evidence of petitioner’s clear, well-defined cycle of offending that begins with becoming frustrated, the deficits in his recent treatment plan on that specific area, and his stagnating course of treatment, we conclude that Dr. Prince’s opinion and the supporting evidence, ” when viewed in light of such features of the case as the nature of the psychiatric diagnosis, and the severity of the mental abnormality itself, [establish that petitioner is a] . . . dangerous sexual offender whose serious mental illness, abnormality, or disorder subjects him to civil commitment[, rather than a] dangerous but typical recidivist convicted in an ordinary criminal case’ ” … . Thus, respondents submitted sufficient evidence that, if it is credited by the factfinder, would establish that petitioner has a condition, disease or disorder “that predisposes him . . . to the commission of conduct constituting a sex offense and that results in [petitioner] having serious difficulty in controlling such conduct” (§ 10.03 [i] …). Consequently, we conclude that, if the factfinder accepts that evidence, there is a “rational process by which the [factfinder] could find for [respondents] as against” petitioner … . Matter of Wright v State of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 09711, 4th Dept 12-31-15

MENTAL HYGIENE LAW (TRIABLE QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PETITIONER HAD SERIOUS DIFFICULTY CONTROLLING SEXUAL CONDUCT)/SEX OFFENDERS (MENTAL HYGIENE LAW, TRIABLE QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PETITIONER HAD SERIOUS DIFFICULTY CONTROLLING SEXUAL CONDUCT)

/

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DRIVER WITH THE RIGHT OF WAY WAS COMPARATIVELY NEGLIGENT IN COLLISION WITH DRIVER WHO FAILED TO YIELD THE RIGHT OF WAY.

The Fourth Department determined there was question of fact whether the driver of a car with the right of way (defendant) was comparatively negligent in striking a car (driven by Deering) which failed to yield the right of way at an intersection:

There is no dispute that Deering was negligent in failing to yield the right-of-way or that defendant was entitled to anticipate that she would obey the traffic laws that required her to yield the right-of-way to him … . Nevertheless, in moving for summary judgment, defendant had the burden of establishing not only that Deering was negligent, but also that he was free of comparative fault … . Defendant failed to meet that burden, inasmuch as his own submissions raised triable issues of fact whether he was negligent … . At his deposition, defendant testified that he saw the Deering vehicle at the intersection after he traveled over an elevated overpass on Route 5 that is approximately 300 yards from the intersection, but he looked away and did not see the Deering vehicle before or at the moment of impact. “[I]t is well settled that drivers have a duty to see what should be seen and to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances to avoid an accident,’ ” and defendant’s admitted failure to see the Deering vehicle immediately prior to the accident raises an issue of fact whether he violated that duty … . Thus, even though defendant had the right-of-way as he approached Bayview Road, he “may nevertheless be found negligent if he . . . fail[ed] to use reasonable care when proceeding into the intersection’ . . . A driver cannot blindly and wantonly enter an intersection’ ” … . Deering v Deering, 2015 NY Slip Op 09715, 4th Dept 12-31-15

NEGLIGENCE (DRIVER WITH RIGHT OF WAY MAY BE COMPARATIVELY NEGLIGENT IN STRIKING CAR WHICH FAILED TO YIELD)/RIGHT OF WAY (DRIVER WITH RIGHT OF WAY MAY BE COMPARATIVELY NEGLIGENT IN STRIKING CAR WHICH FAILED TO YIELD)

/ ,

EXPERT EVIDENCE OF A RECALL AND EVIDENCE OF CUSTOMER COMPLAINTS ABOUT DEFENDANTS’ MOTORCYCLE RELEVANT TO DEFENDANTS’ DUTY TO WARN.

The Fourth Department, eliminating restrictions on the evidence imposed by Supreme Court, determined evidence from plaintiffs’ electrical expert and evidence of customer complaints were relevant to defendants’ duty to warn. Plaintiffs alleged an electrical defect in their motorcycle (manufactured by defendants) caused the accident. Plaintiffs sought to introduce evidence of a recall made prior to the accident and evidence of customer complaints:

… [W]e conclude that the court erred in granting that part of defendants’ motion seeking to preclude the testimony of plaintiffs’ electrical engineer expert and the customer complaints to the extent that such evidence is relevant to defendants’ continuing duty to warn. We therefore modify the order accordingly. “A manufacturer or retailer may . . . incur liability for failing to warn concerning dangers in the use of a product which come to his attention after manufacture or sale . . . through being made aware of later accidents involving dangers in the product of which warning should be given to users . . . Although a product [may] be reasonably safe when manufactured and sold and involve no then known risks of which warning need be given, risks thereafter revealed by user operation and brought to the attention of the manufacturer or vendor may impose upon one or both a duty to warn” … . “What notice . . . will trigger [this] postdelivery duty to warn appears to be a function of the degree of danger which the problem involves and the number of instances reported . . . [Whether] a prima facie case on that issue has been made will, of course, depend on the facts of each case” … .

Defendant’s recall was first issued in March 2004, prior to plaintiffs’ accident on April 30, 2004. A determination that plaintiffs’ motorcycle should have been included in the recall would be relevant to defendants’ duty to warn plaintiffs of the defect that, plaintiffs allege, caused a “quit while riding” event in their motorcycle and thereby caused or contributed to their accident. Plaintiffs’ expert, an electrical engineer, expects to testify in part that plaintiffs’ motorcycle does not differ in any material respect from those included in the 2004 recall, despite the fact that plaintiffs’ motorcycle did not have the same stator as the motorcycles affected by the recall. In our view, the expert’s qualifications as an electrical engineer qualify him to opine whether the motorcycles “were the same in all significant respects” … , and the fact that the expert has done no testing goes to the weight to be given to his testimony, not its admissibility … . Smalley v Harley-Davidson Motor Co. Group LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 09712, 4th Dept 12-31-15

NEGLIGENCE (PRODUCTS LIABILITY, EVIDENDE OF RECALL AND CUSTOMER COMPLAINTS RE: DEFENDANT’S MOTORCYCLE RELEVANT TO DEFENDANTS’ DUTY TO WARN)/PRODUCTS LIABILITY (EVIDENCE OF RECALL AND CUSTOMER COMPLAINTS RE: DEFENDANT’S MOTORCYCLE RELEVANT TO DEFENDANTS’ DUTY TO WARN)/DUTY TO WARN (PRODUCTS LIABILITY, EVIDENCE OF RECALL AND CUSTOMER COMPLAINTS RE: DEFENDANT’S MOTORCYCLE RELEVANT TO DEFENDANTS’ DUTY TO WARN)

/ ,

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH EXECUTIVE-COMPENSATION-CAP AND CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST RULES FOR AGENCIES PROVIDING SERVICES TO DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED CHILDREN DO NOT VIOLATE THE SEPARATION OF POWERS DOCTRINE.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dickerson, reversing Supreme Court, determined that two Department of Health (DOH) rules concerning services provided to developmentally disabled children did not violate the separation of powers doctrine. One rule placed a cap on executive compensation, and the other prohibited an agency which evaluates a child’s need for services from itself providing those services (“conflict of interest” rule). The First Department explained the underlying general principles and then went through each of the Boreali [71 NY2d 1] “separation of powers” factors for each rule:

“The cornerstone of administrative law is derived from the principle that the Legislature may declare its will, and after fixing a primary standard, endow administrative agencies with the power to fill in the interstices in the legislative product by prescribing rules and regulations consistent with the enabling legislation” … . “The constitutional principle of separation of powers . . . requires that the [L]egislature make the critical policy decisions, while the executive branch’s responsibility is to implement those policies” … . “The branches of government cannot always be neatly divided, however, and common sense must be applied when reviewing a separation of powers challenge. As long as the [L]egislature makes the basic policy choices, the legislation need not be detailed or precise as to the agency’s role” … . Where an agency has been endowed with broad power to regulate in the public interest, courts generally will uphold reasonable acts that further the regulatory scheme … .

[The Boreali] factors are (1) “whether the agency did more than balanc[e] costs and benefits according to preexisting guidelines, but instead made value judgments entail[ing] difficult and complex choices between broad policy goals to resolve social problems”; (2) “whether the agency merely filled in details of a broad policy or if it wrote on a clean slate, creating its own comprehensive set of rules without benefit of legislative guidance”; (3) “whether the [L]egislature has unsuccessfully tried to reach agreement on the issue, which would indicate that the matter is a policy consideration for the elected body to resolve”; and (4) “whether the agency used special expertise or competence in the field to develop the challenged regulations” … . The “central theme” of a Boreali analysis is that “an administrative agency exceeds its authority when it makes difficult choices between public policy ends, rather than find[ing] means to an end chosen by the Legislature” … . Agencies for Children’s Therapy Servs., Inc. v New York State Dept. of Health,  2015 NY Slip Op 09647, 2nd Dept 12-30-15

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (SERVICES FOR DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED CHILDREN, DOH EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION CAP AND CONFLICT OF INTEREST RULES DO NOT VIOLATE SEPARATION OF POWERS DOCTRINE)/DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED CHILDREN, SERVICES FOR (DOH EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION CAP AND CONFLICT OF INTEREST RULES DO NOT VIOLATE SEPARARY OF POWERS)/DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH (EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION CAP AND CONFLICT OF INETERST RULES DO NOT VIOLATE SEPARATION OF POWERS DOCTRINE)/SEPARATION OF POWERS DOCTRINE (SERVICES FOR DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED CHILDREN, DOH EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION CAP AND CONFLICT OF INTEREST RULES DO NOT VIOLATE SEPARATION OF POWERS DOCTRINE)

/ , , ,

RECORDINGS OF 911 CALLS RE: PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S CAR ACCIDENT DISCOVERABLE IN A WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION.

In a matter of first impression at the appellate level, the Second Department determined the recordings of 911 calls relating to plaintiff’s decedent’s (Reece’s) car accident were discoverable. The wrongful death action was brought against the state alleging that a traffic counting device shattered when plaintiff’s decedent’s car drove over it, puncturing the gas tank and causing a fire which killed plaintiff’s decedent and two children. The claimant served a subpoena upon non-party county for the recordings and the county moved to quash the subpoena. The Second Department held that the motion to quash was properly denied:

The County moved to quash the subpoena on the ground that under County Law § 308(4), 911 recordings and documents are not discoverable by any entity or person other than certain designated public agencies and emergency medical providers. The claimant opposed the motion and thereafter moved to compel discovery of, inter alia, the 911 tapes, arguing that they were discoverable under CPLR 3101 as material and relevant matter. Specifically, the claimant argued that the material may be expected to reveal why Reece’s vehicle left the roadway, the length of time the vehicle’s occupants experienced conscious pain and suffering, and the amount of time it took for police to respond to the scene. * * *

We view the language of County Law § 308(4) as generally prohibiting entities and private individuals from accessing 911 tapes and records … . However, the statute is not intended to prohibit the disclosure of matter that is material and relevant in a civil litigation, accessible by a so-ordered subpoena or directed by a court to be disclosed in a discovery order … . Indeed, in analogous criminal practice, 911 tapes and records are frequently made available to individual defendants as part of the People’s disclosure obligations pursuant to People v Rosario (9 NY2d 286…) and are admitted at trials to describe events as present sense impressions of witnesses … , to identify perpetrators as present sense impressions … , or as excited utterances … . Clearly, the general language of County Law § 308(4), which is part of the statute governing the establishment of an emergency 911 system in various counties, cannot be interpreted as prohibiting court-ordered discovery of 911 material in civil litigation. Anderson v State of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 09648, 2nd Dept 12-30-15

CIVIL PROCEDURE (911 TAPES DISCOVERABLE IN WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION)/MUNICIPAL LAW (911 TAPES DISCOVERABLE IN WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION)/EVIDENCE (911 TAPES DISCOVERABLE IN WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION)/NEGLIGENCE (911 TAPES DISCOVERABLE IN WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION)/WRONGFUL DEATH (911 TAPES DISCOVERABLE)/911 TAPES (DISCOVERABLE IN WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION)

/

PEOPLE’S FAILURE TO OBJECT TO JURY INSTRUCTION WHICH (UNNECESSARILY) INCREASED THEIR BURDEN OF PROOF REQUIRED THE PEOPLE TO MEET THAT BURDEN.

The Second Department determined that People’s failure to object to the judge’s instruction to the jury, which increased the People’s burden of proof, required that the People meet that burden (which the People failed to do). The defendant was charged with first degree robbery. Two victims, Brandt and Bishop, were ordered to lie on the ground at gunpoint. Brandt was shot when he didn’t lie down and later died. Property was taken from Bishop, but not from Brandt. In the charge to the jury, the judge stated that, in order to convict the defendant of first degree robbery, the jury must find property was forcibly taken from Brandt. The People did not object:

As the People correctly concede, the evidence was legally insufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt of robbery in the first degree under Penal Law § 160.15(1), as that crime was charged to the jury. As relevant here, “[a] person is guilty of robbery in the first degree when he forcibly steals property and when, in the course of the commission of the crime or of immediate flight therefrom, he or another participant in the crime . . . [c]auses serious physical injury to any person who is not a participant in the crime” (Penal Law § 160.15[1]). In this case, the Supreme Court instructed the jurors, without objection, that to find the defendant guilty of robbery in the first degree, they had to find, inter alia, that the defendant, acting in concert with at least one other individual, forcibly stole property from Brandt. Where, as here, “the trial court’s instructions to the jury increase the People’s burden, and the People fail to object, they must satisfy the heavier burden” … . Inasmuch as the evidence demonstrated that property was only taken from Bishop, the People failed to satisfy their burden as to the count of robbery in the first degree. Although the defendant’s legal sufficiency claim as to this count is unpreserved for appellate review, we reach it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction … . People v Rose, 2015 NY Slip Op 09702, 2nd Dept 12-30-15

CRIMINAL LAW (PEOPLE’S FAILURE TO OBJECT TO JURY CHARGE WHICH INCREASED THEIR BURDEN OF PROOF REQUIRED THEM TO MEET THAT BURDEN)/JURY INSTRUCTION (PEOPLE’S FAILURE TO OBJECT TO JURY CHARGE WHICH INCREASED THEIR BURDEN OF PROOF REQUIRED THEM TO MEET THAT BURDEN)/BURDEN OF PROOF, CRIMINAL (PEOPLE’S FAILURE TO OBJECT TO JURY CHARGE WHICH INCREASED THEIR BURDEN OF PROOF REQUIRED THEM TO MEET THAT BURDEN)

/ , ,

FAILURE TO INFORM DEFENDANT OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS PLEA REQUIRED THAT HE BE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS CASE MANDATING AN EXPLANATION OF DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES CAME DOWN AFTER DEFENDANT’S PLEA.

The Second Department determined defendant should be afforded the opportunity to withdraw his plea because he was not informed of the deportation consequences of the plea. Although the Court of Appeals case requiring that the deportation consequences be explained came down after defendant’s plea, the issue was properly raised on defendant’s direct appeal:

Relying upon People v Peque (22 NY3d 168) the defendant contends that his plea of guilty was not knowing and voluntary because the plea record demonstrates that the court never advised him of the possibility that he would be deported as a consequence of his plea. In Peque, the Court of Appeals held that, as a matter of “fundamental fairness,” due process requires that a court apprise a noncitizen pleading guilty to a felony of the possibility of deportation as a consequence of the plea of guilty (id. at 193). A defendant seeking to vacate a plea based on this defect must establish that there is a “reasonable probability” that he or she would not have pleaded guilty and would instead have gone to trial had the court warned of the possibility of deportation (id. at 176, 198).

As a threshold matter, we disagree with the People’s contention that Peque should only apply prospectively. Inasmuch as Peque, decided after the defendant’s plea, involved federal constitutional principles, it must be applied to this direct appeal … . Contrary to the People’s contention, the record does not demonstrate either that the Supreme Court mentioned, or that the defendant was otherwise aware of, the possibility of deportation. Therefore, the defendant’s claim is not subject to the requirement of preservation … . People v Odle, 2015 NY Slip Op 09699, 2nd Dept 12-30-15

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT NOT INFORMED OF DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF GUILTY PLEA ENTITLED TO WITHDRAW PLEA)/DEPORTATION (DEFENDANT NOT INFORMED OF DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF GUILTY PLEA, ENTITLED TO WITHDRAW PLEA)

/

SENTENCING COURT’S FAILURE TO CONSIDER YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS REQUIRED VACATION OF SENTENCE.

The Second Department determined Supreme Court’s failure to consider whether defendant should be adjudicated a youthful offender required vacation of the sentence, despite the fact defendant did not request youthful offender status:

In People v Rudolph (21 NY3d 497, 499), the Court of Appeals held that compliance with CPL 720.20(1), which provides that the sentencing court “must” determine whether an eligible defendant is to be treated as a youthful offender, “cannot be dispensed with, even where defendant has failed to ask to be treated as a youthful offender, or has purported to waive his or her right to make such a request.” Compliance with CPL 720.20(1) requires the sentencing court to actually consider and make an independent determination of whether an eligible youth is entitled to youthful offender treatment … . Here, the Supreme Court did not place on the record any reason for not adjudicating the defendant a youthful offender on his conviction of attempted robbery in the second degree under Indictment No. 9960/10, and there is nothing in the record to indicate that it considered and made an actual determination as to whether the defendant should be granted youthful offender treatment for his conviction under that indictment … . Under these circumstances, we vacate the defendant’s sentence and remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a determination of whether the defendant should be afforded youthful offender treatment. People v Worrell, 2015 NY Slip Op 09706, 2nd Dept 12-30-15

CRIMINAL LAW (FAILURE TO CONSIDER YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS REQUIRED VACATION OF SENTENCE)/YOUTHFUL OFFENDER (FAILURE TO CONSIDER YOUTHFUL OFFENDER ADJUDICATION REQUIRED VACATION OF SENTENCE)/SENTENCING (FAILURE TO CONSIDER YOUTHFUL OFFENDER ADJUDICATION REQUIRED VACATION OF SENTENCE)

/ ,

ONLY A CLOSE RELATIVE COULD SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGE THAT THE APPELLANT WAS UNDER SIXTEEN TO SUPPORT THE AGE-ELEMENT OF THE CHARGED OFFENSE; HERE APPELLANT’S COUSIN’S ALLEGATION APPELLANT WAS FOURTEEN WAS INSUFFICIENT.

The Second Department determined that the allegation of appellant’s age in a juvenile delinquency petition was insufficient. The adjudication based upon “unlawful possession of weapons by persons under sixteen” was therefore deleted. Although an allegation of age by a close relative will be sufficient to support an age-element of an offense, here the age allegation was made by appellant’s cousin:

Here, the petition failed to provide an adequate nonhearsay allegation of an essential element of Penal Law § 265.05, namely, that the appellant was under the age of sixteen at the time of the incident. The complainant’s supporting deposition alleged that the appellant was his “14-year-old cousin,” but it did not state the source of the complainant’s knowledge of the appellant’s age. The presentment agency contends that the allegation is sufficient, and it relies on the proposition that “it is generally recognized that the age of a family member is common knowledge within a family” (Matter of Brandon P., 106 AD3d 653, 653). That proposition, however, applies to close family relationships. Notably, in Matter of Brandon P., the allegation as to the appellant’s age was made by the appellant’s sister (see id. at 653). The relationship of “cousin,” by contrast, is too distant and too broad in degree of consanguinity (see Black’s Law Dictionary 442-443 [10th ed 2014]) to meet the requirements of Family Court Act § 311.2 in this case. Specifically, the complainant’s statement regarding the appellant’s age was not a sufficient nonhearsay allegation based on personal knowledge establishing reasonable cause to believe that the age element of the offense was met. Since count four of the petition was jurisdictionally defective, that count must be dismissed, and the order of disposition and the order of fact-finding modified accordingly … . Matter of Diamond J. (Anonymous), 2015 NY Slip Op 09689, 2nd Dept 12-30-15

FAMILY LAW (JUVENILE DELINQUENCY, AGE-ALLEGATION FOR AN OFFENSE CHARGED IN A JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PETITION CAN ONLY BE MADE BY A CLOSE RELATIVE)/JUVENILE DELINQUENCY (AGE-ALLEGATION FOR AN OFFENSE CHARGED IN A JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PETITION CAN ONLY BE MADE BY A CLOSE RELATIVE)/EVIDENCE (AGE-ALLEGATION FOR AN OFFENSE CHARGED IN A JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PETITION CAN ONLY BE  MADE BY A CLOSE RELATIVE)

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