In re Jordan E.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Dec 2, 2008

Versions:57 A.D.3d 539

869 N.Y.2d 162

Stevenson v. Presentment Agency >

improperly questioned by police, he does not allege that this incident yielded a statement or any other evidence that was sought to be introduced or actually introduced at the fact-finding hearing. Thus, there is no basis for suppression of the police testimony (see People v Burr, 70 NY2d 354, 362 [1987], cert denied 485 US 989 [1988]). The Family Court also did not err in quashing the appellant‘s subpoena for the memo book of one of the arresting officers. That item was not a prior statement of a witness, since that officer did not testify at the fact-finding hearing (see People v Rosario, 9 NY2d 286, 289 [1961], cert denied 368 US 866 [1961]; CPL 240.45). Further, there was no showing that the material sought was exculpatory (see People v Carnett, 19 AD3d 703 [2005]; People v Delvecchio, 187 AD2d 726 [1992]; see also People v Ramirez, 224 AD2d 455, 456 [1996]).

The Family Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in finding that the forensic scientist possessed the requisite skill, training, education, knowledge, or expertise to render a reliable opinion as to the identity of the material seized upon the appellant‘s arrest (see People v Menendez, 50 AD3d 1061 [2008]). Further, the evidence provided reasonable assurances as to the chain of custody of the material in question (see People v Julian, 41 NY2d 340, 343 [1977]; People v Valdez, 41 AD3d 316 [2007]; People v Isaac, 40 AD3d 1118 [2007]). Thus, any deficiencies in the chain of custody went only to the weight to be accorded the evidence, not its admissibility (see People v Julian, 41 NY2d at 343; People v Isaac, 40 AD3d at 1118).

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Presentment Agency (see Matter of David H., 69 NY2d 792, 793 [1987]; Matter of Charles S., 41 AD3d 484, 485 [2007]), we find that it was legally sufficient to support the finding that the appellant committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crime of criminal possession of marijuana in the fifth degree (see Penal Law § 221.10). Upon our independent factual review, we are satisfied that the Family Court‘s findings of fact were not against the weight of the evidence (cf. CPL 470.15 [5]).

The appellant‘s remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J.P., Florio, Miller and Dillon, JJ., concur.

The evidence supports the Family Court‘s determination that the father neglected the subject children by engaging in certain acts of domestic violence against the mother in their presence that impaired, or created an imminent danger of impairing, their physical, emotional, or mental conditions (see Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [B]; Matter of Andrew Y., 44 AD3d 1063, 1064 [2007]; Matter of Zachery M., 306 AD2d 348, 349 [2003]; cf. Nicholson v Scoppetta, 3 NY3d 357, 367-372 [2004]). Rivera, J.P., Dillon, Covello and McCarthy, JJ., concur.

RITTER, J.P., FLORIO, MILLER and DILLON, JJ., concur.

RIVERA, J.P., DILLON, COVELLO and MCCARTHY, JJ., concur.

” The user prompt specifies that if the input is not a legal opinion, it should return `null`. However, the provided content is a fragment of a legal opinion from the New York Appellate Division. It seems to be two separate, short memorandum decisions (which is common in reporter volumes like NYS2d). The user instruction states: “If the document contains multiple opinions... convert only the MAIN opinion — the one with a complete case caption and full opinion body. Skip partial content from a previous case that appears at the beginning of the document.” In this case: 1. The text at the top of page 539 is the tail end of an opinion (indicated by “The appellant‘s remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J.P., Florio, Miller and Dillon, JJ., concur.“) 2. A new case caption starts immediately after: “In the Matter of JORDAN E. ... [869 NYS2d 162]” 3. This case continues onto page 540, but ends very quickly with another list of judges concurring. 4. Then a third case starts: “In the Matter of FNR Home Construction Corp. ... [868 NYS2d 310]” I will format the case starting with “In the Matter of JORDAN E.” as it is the first complete opinion starting with a caption in this fragment. ```html

In the Matter of JORDAN E. ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN‘S SERVICES, Respondent; MARK C., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of MARK C., JR. ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN‘S SERVICES, Respondent; MARK C., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 2.) In the Matter of NICHOLAS C. ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN‘S SERVICES, Respondent; MARK C., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 3.) [869 NYS2d 162]—The evidence supports the Family Court‘s determination that the father neglected the subject children by engaging in certain acts of domestic violence against the mother in their presence that impaired, or created an imminent danger of impairing, their physical, emotional, or mental conditions (see Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [B]; Matter of Andrew Y., 44 AD3d 1063, 1064 [2007]; Matter of Zachery M., 306 AD2d 348, 349 [2003]; cf. Nicholson v Scoppetta, 3 NY3d 357, 367-372 [2004]). Rivera, J.P., Dillon, Covello and McCarthy, JJ., concur.

``` Wait, looking closer at the PDF. Page 539: The first block of text belongs to a case about a criminal possession of marijuana (likely a juvenile delinquency case given the “Presentment Agency” mention). The second block (the caption for Jordan E.) starts at the bottom of 539 and the text for it is at the top of 540. The third block (FNR Home Construction Corp) starts on 540. The prompt says: “If the document contains multiple opinions... convert only the MAIN opinion — the one with a complete case caption and full opinion body.” The first opinion on the page is a fragment (starts mid-sentence). The second opinion (Matter of Jordan E.) is complete within this view (starts with a caption on 539, has text and concurrences on 540). Therefore, I will convert “In the Matter of Jordan E.” One correction: The caption at the bottom of 539 is the start of that opinion. The text on 540 corresponds to that caption. HTML:

Wait, I should check if the first case is actually “partial“. “improperly questioned by police...” Yes, it is clearly the middle of a case. Okay, I will extract “In the Matter of Jordan E.” which is the only complete case starting in this snippet. Actually, the case at the bottom of 540 (FNR Home Construction Corp) is just a caption and a citation. Let‘s stick to Jordan E. Wait, the prompt says “If the document contains multiple opinions... convert only the MAIN opinion“. Usually, these snippets are provided to get a specific one. Since Jordan E. is the only one with a full caption and text block following it, it‘s the right choice. Correction: The case name in the details block should be cleaned. shortName=“Matter of Jordan E.” One more check on the OCR vs Image. On 539, the caption starts after a black square. “In the Matter of JORDAN E. ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN‘S SERVICES...” On 540, the text starts “The evidence supports...” The citation in brackets [869 NYS2d 162] is at the end of the caption on 539. There is a dash after the citation. Final check on laws/cases. Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [B] -> jurisdiction=“NY” cite=“N.Y. Fam. Ct. Act § 1012(f)(i)(B)” Matter of Andrew Y., 44 AD3d 1063, 1064 [2007] -> case=“Matter of Andrew Y.” cite=“44 AD3d 1063” pinpoint=“1064” court=“N.Y. App. Div.” date=“2007” Matter of Zachery M., 306 AD2d 348, 349 [2003] -> case=“Matter of Zachery M.” cite=“306 AD2d 348” pinpoint=“349” court=“N.Y. App. Div.” date=“2003” Nicholson v Scoppetta, 3 NY3d 357, 367-372 [2004] -> case=“Nicholson v. Scoppetta” cite=“3 NY3d 357” pinpoint=“367-372” court=“N.Y.” date=“2004” One detail: the OCR says “Rivera, J.P., Dillon, Covello and McCarthy, JJ, concur.” (no period after JJ). The image shows “JJ., concur.” (period present). I will follow the image. The caption itself on 539: “In the Matter of JORDAN E. ... [869 NYS2d 162]—” The em-dash is part of the text transition. ```html

``` Wait, the prompt says: “Extract metadata here, don‘t repeat in body“. So the caption should not be in the body if it‘s in the Case Information. Revised Body:

Wait, strictly speaking, the metadata extracted includes the names and citation. But the text segment actually flows from page 539 to 540. If I remove the caption text, the start of the opinion on 539 is empty. That‘s fine. Actually, the rule says “Case caption blocks (if already fully extracted to Case Information) — do not repeat court name, party names, or docket in the body“. The text at the bottom of 539 IS the caption block. One detail: the citation in the caption `[869 NYS2d 162]` is often treated as part of the header. Final check. The short name should be Bluebook style. “Matter of Jordan E.” or “Administration for Children‘s Services v. Mark C.“? New York Family court cases are usually “Matter of [Child]“. Bluebook: Matter of Jordan E. The date is not present in this fragment, but usually these are Appellate Division, Second Department cases. The metadata doesn‘t show it though, so I‘ll omit it. Court is also not explicitly named in the text on these pages (just “Family Court“). But given “AD3d” cites, it‘s a NY App Div case. However, I should only extract what‘s there. CPL 470.15 [5] etc were in the previous case. I must ignore the previous case. Final Output structure:

Case Info

... text ...

... text ... Wait, the caption on 539 ends with a long dash. The text on 540 starts after that dash. So effectively, the opinion starts with “The evidence supports...” on page 540. The portion on 539 is purely the caption. Therefore:

...

The evidence supports...

Actually, putting the page marker 539 is necessary. One thing: usually, if the caption is the ONLY thing on the page, we don‘t skip the page marker. But wait, looking at the first page... the first half of page 539 is the end of the marijuana case. I should check if I should convert the Marijuana case instead. “improperly questioned by police...” This is clearly the opinion body, but the caption is missing. Rule: “convert only the MAIN opinion — the one with a complete case caption and full opinion body.” The Marijuana case is incomplete (missing caption). The Jordan E. case is complete (has caption and body). The FNR case is incomplete (missing body). So Jordan E. is the correct one. Final check on shortName: Bluebook for “In the Matter of Jordan E.” is “Matter of Jordan E.” One more check: the text “Administration for Children‘s Services” appears in the caption. The caption on 539 is: “In the Matter of Jordan E. Administration for Children‘s Services, Respondent; Mark C., Appellant.” This is the formal party listing. ```html

``` Wait, is there more? No, that seems to be the entire memorandum opinion for that case. It‘s a short one. One detail: “Rivera, J.P., Dillon, Covello and McCarthy, JJ., concur.” In legal reporter formatting, if this is a memorandum decision, this concurrences line acts as the signature block. I will leave it in the paragraph as it appears in the source text. Actually, the instruction says “Skip caption separator characters: ) or |“. The Proceedings (Proceeding No. 1.) are part of the caption. Final check on laws. “Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [B]” -> jurisdiction=“NY” cite=“N.Y. Fam. Ct. Act § 1012(f)(i)(B)” Wait, the citation [869 NYS2d 162] is at the end of the caption on 539. It‘s the parallel citation. I‘ll include it in the Case Information. One final check on the Marijuana case. If it was the “Main” opinion of the document... but I don‘t have its caption. So I can‘t fulfill the “complete case caption” requirement. Final check on page markers. Page 539 has the caption at the bottom. Page 540 has the text. I‘ll place `539` then `540`. ```html

``` Wait, usually these NYS2d pages have the official reporter citation at the top or bottom, but here it‘s just the page numbers “539” and “540“. The citation [869 NYS2d 162] is likely the parallel one. I‘ll just use it as the citation. One more thing: The case name in the details block. “In the Matter of Jordan E.” is the start. The list of proceedings. Bluebook short name for consolidated matters: Use the first one. shortName=“Matter of Jordan E.” Actually, the caption text has some minor formatting (small caps etc). I‘ll just keep it plain in the Case Information paragraph as per usual. Final verification: Page 540: “Rivera, J.P., Dillon, Covello and McCarthy, JJ., concur.” The OCR for 540 ends there. Wait, is there a signature block? No, these memorandum decisions usually just list the judges at the end of the text block. Final decision: I will include the text on page 540. One last check: Does page 539 have headnotes? The Marijuana case has text that looks like an opinion body, not headnotes. The Jordan E. case has a caption and then goes straight into the opinion. The text on page 540 is: “The evidence supports the Family Court‘s determination that the father neglected the subject children by engaging in certain acts of domestic violence against the mother in their presence that impaired, or created an imminent danger of impairing, their physical, emotional, or mental conditions (see Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [B]; Matter of Andrew Y., 44 AD3d 1063, 1064 [2007]; Matter of Zachery M., 306 AD2d 348, 349 [2003]; cf. Nicholson v Scoppetta, 3 NY3d 357, 367-372 [2004]). Rivera, J.P., Dillon, Covello and McCarthy, JJ., concur.” This is the whole opinion. It‘s a “Memorandum” decision typical of NY Appellate Divisions. Double check citations in that block: Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [B] -> jurisdiction=“NY” cite=“N.Y. Fam. Ct. Act § 1012(f)(i)(B)” Matter of Andrew Y., 44 AD3d 1063, 1064 [2007] -> case=“Matter of Andrew Y.” cite=“44 AD3d 1063” pinpoint=“1064” court=“N.Y. App. Div.” date=“2007” Matter of Zachery M., 306 AD2d 348, 349 [2003] -> case=“Matter of Zachery M.” cite=“306 AD2d 348” pinpoint=“349” court=“N.Y. App. Div.” date=“2003” Nicholson v Scoppetta, 3 NY3d 357, 367-372 [2004] -> case=“Nicholson v. Scoppetta” cite=“3 NY3d 357” pinpoint=“367-372” court=“N.Y.” date=“2004” Wait, the Nicholson pinpoint is “367-372“. Done.