From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Andrew

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 21, 1991
177 A.D.2d 428 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

November 21, 1991

Appeal from the Family Court, New York County (Jeffry H. Gallet, J.).


Appellant contends that the juvenile delinquency petition, alleging that he committed acts which if done by an adult, would constitute, among other things, attempted robbery and attempted larceny, was jurisdictionally defective in that there was no factual allegation that he attempted to steal property. The supporting depositions charged, essentially, that appellant, accompanied by another person, approached the complainant, simulated the presence of a weapon by placing his hand under his sweatshirt, and directed the complainant to stay calm. While there was no allegation of an explicit demand for the complainant's property the police officer-eyewitness' deposition, attached to the petition, attested that appellant had attempted "to forcibly steal property" from the complainant.

The issue presented is whether the petition is sufficient as to the element of intent to deprive another of property. Unless a juvenile delinquency petition contains non-hearsay allegations, which, if true, establish every element of each crime charged (Family Ct Act § 311.2), it is both incurably legally insufficient and jurisdictionally defective (Matter of Detrece H., 78 N.Y.2d 107; Matter of David T., 75 N.Y.2d 927).

A similar argument — that an explicit demand for property, either by word or gesture, must be alleged to establish the requisite intent for attempted robbery or larceny — was rejected in People v. Bracey ( 41 N.Y.2d 296). In Bracey, the trial evidence showed that defendant and an accomplice drove to a store, made a token purchase, left the premises, and then returned and displayed a weapon. This evidence, which the court characterized as "fit[ting] a familiar pattern common to robberies" (supra, at 302), was held sufficient to establish an intent to commit robbery. Similarly, here, the facts alleged give rise to an inference that appellant intended to steal property sufficient to support the charges of attempted robbery and attempted larceny.

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Carro, Rosenberger and Rubin, JJ.


Summaries of

Matter of Andrew

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 21, 1991
177 A.D.2d 428 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

Matter of Andrew

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of ANDREW S., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent…

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

Date published: Nov 21, 1991

Citations

177 A.D.2d 428 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
576 N.Y.S.2d 270

Citing Cases

People v. Phillips

9, 454 N.E.2d 932), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a…

People v. Phillips

454 N.E.2d 932 ), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a…