In thе Matter of KEDNE L., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York
November 20, 2007
45 A.D.3d 843 | 846 N.Y.S.2d 605
In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, the appeal is from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Weinstein, J.), dated April 18, 2006, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court dated March 1, 2006, made after a hearing, finding that the appellant committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of assault in the third degree as a hate crime (four counts) and menacing in the third degree as a hate crime (six counts), adjudged her to be a juvenile delinquent and placed her on probation for a period of 12 months. The appeal brings up for review the fact-finding order dаted March 1, 2006, and the denial of that branch of the appellant‘s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.
Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.
The appeal from so much of the order of disposition as placed the appellant on рrobation for a period of 12 months has been rendered academic, as the period of placement has expired (see Matter of Terrance D., 44 AD3d 656 [2007]; Matter of Rasahkeliai R., 40 AD3d 765 [2007]; Matter of Ricky A., 11 AD3d 532, 532-533 [2004]). However, because there may be collateral consequences resulting from the adjudication of delinquеncy, that portion of the appeal which brings up for review the fact-finding order is not academic (see Matter of Terrance D., 44 AD3d 656 [2007]; Matter of Ricky A., 11 AD3d at 532-533).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the presentment agency (see Matter of Jerrol H., 19 AD3d 693 [2005]; Matter of Bernell R.W., 7 AD3d 724 [2004]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish that the appellant committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of assault in the third degree as a hate crime (see
Contrary to the appellant‘s contention, the showup identificаtion, which was conducted in close geographic and temporal proximity to the incident, was reasonable under the circumstances and not unduly suggestive (cf. People v. Brisco, 99 NY2d 596, 597 [2003]; People v. Clinding, 40 AD3d 1117 [2007], lv
The appellant‘s remaining contentions are without merit.
Miller, J.P., Ritter, Skelos and Covello, JJ., concur.
MILLER, J.P.
RITTER, J.
SKELOS, J.
COVELLO, J.
In the Matter of SALVATORE J. LALIMA, Respondent, v COUNTY OF SUFFOLK et al., Appellants.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York
November 20, 2007
45 A.D.3d 845 | 847 NYS2d 208
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review determinations of the County of Suffolk and the County of Suffolk Office of the County Comptroller dated November 21, 2003, and December 24, 2003, respectively, denying the petitioner‘s request for the payment of retirement severance benefits of $98,920.90, and to compel the payment of such funds, the County of Suffolk and the County of Suffolk Office of the County Comptroller appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Mullen, J.), entered October 3, 2006, which grаnted the petition, annulled the determinations, and directed them to pay the petitioner the sum of $98,920.90 and to report to the New York State Retirement System that the petitioner‘s salary upon retirement was $170,000 per year.
In a proceeding pursuant to
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
On April 1, 2000, the petitioner was appointed to a three-year term as President of Suffolk County Community College (hereinafter the college) by rеsolution of the Board of Trustees (hereinafter the Board) and was given an annual salary of $135,000. His contract of employment provided, inter alia, that (1) any extension of the contract would be voted by resolution of the Board, (2) his annual salary would be detеrmined by the Board and agreed to by him, (3) he would be provided 30 days vacation annually, (4) he would be paid additional fringe benefits as set forth in the Status and Benefits Handbook for Managerial-Confidential Employees of the college, and (5) at his retirement,
``` Wait, I neеd to check the request. “Convert the provided legal document... while preserving all content exactly.” The document starts with the end of one case, then a full case (“In the Matter of Kedne L.“), then the start of another case (“In the Matter of Salvatore J. LaLima“). The instruction says: “If the document contains multiple opinions (e.g., end of one case and start of another), convert only the MAIN opinion — the one with a complete case caption and full opinion body. Skip partial content frоm a previous case that appears at the beginning of the document.” In the provided text: Page 843 starts with text from a previous case (about family offense, adjournment). This is partial. Then, a full case starts: “In the Matter of Kedne L.” on page 843. It has the caption, the summary, the order, and the opinion body. It ends on page 845 (“The appellant‘s remaining contentions are without merit. Miller, J.P., Ritter, Skelos and Covello, JJ., concur.“). Then, another case starts on page 845: “In the Matter of Salvatore J. LaLima“. This case is cut off at the end of page 845. According to the rules: “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 thе document.” So I should skip the first paragraph on page 843. I should convert “In the Matter of Kedne L.” in full. I should NOT convert “In the Matter of Salvatore J. LaLima” because it is partial/cut off? Or is it the “main” one? Usually, the prompt asks to convert the document providеd. Since Kedne L. is complete within the pages provided, and LaLima is not, Kedne L. is the main one to focus on. Wait, looking at the screenshots: Page 1: Top has the end of a case. Then the Kedne L. case starts. Page 2: Kedne L. continues. Page 3: Kedne L. ends. Then LaLima starts and ends with “at his retirement,“. The main opinion here is Kedne L. Let‘s re-verify: “If the document contains multiple opinions (e.g., end of one case and start of another), convert only the MAIN opinion — the one with a complete case сaption and full opinion body. Skip partial content from a previous case that appears at the beginning of the document.” Kedne L. is the main one. Let‘s double check the OCR and text for Kedne L. Page 843 (bottom): “In the Matter of Kedne L., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant. [846 NYS2d 605]—In a juvenile delinquency proceeding...” Page 844: “Ordered that the appeal...” Page 845: “denied 9 NY3d 874 [2007]; Matter of David B., 244 AD2d 405 [1997]). The appellant‘s remaining contentions are without merit. Miller, J.P., Ritter, Skelos and Covello, JJ., concur.” This is the complete Kedne L. opinion. I will now generate the HTML for Kedne L. only. Case Info for Kedne L.: Case Name: In the Matter of KEDNE L., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant. Short Name: In re Kedne L. Docket: None provided in caption. Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York (indicated by “AD3d” and the judges’ names common to the 2nd Dept like Ritter, Skelos). Date: Nov 20, 2007 (implied by AD3d 843 citation and the surrounding cases in reports usually. But looking at the OCR, it doesn‘t give a specific date for Kedne L. decision at the start. It says “dated April 18, 2006” for the Family Court order. However, legal reports like 45 AD3d are published by date. Let‘s look closer at page 845. The LaLima case doesn‘t have a date either. I will use “unknown” or leave blank if not in text? Actually, usually thе court name and date are in the header which is cropped. I will look for clues. The [846 NYS2d 605] citation is there. Wait, the instructions say “Extract metadata here... Preserve formatting exactly“. If it‘s not in the visible text/OCR, I shouldn‘t hallucinate it. But the prompt says “expert legal document formatter“. Actually, I see the date “April 18, 2006” and “March 1, 2006” for lower court orders. I‘ll stick to what is in the text for metadata. Actually, the standard for these AD3d reports is the case name, citation, and summary/order. I‘ll check the metadata from the OCR. Page 1 OCR: “dated April 18, 2006” (Lower court). I don‘t see the Appellate Division decision date. I‘ll omit the date attribute if not found. Wait, looking at standard AD3d layout, the date usually appears at the start of a group of cases. It‘s missing from the snippet. I‘ll omit the date. Case Name: In the Matter of Kedne L., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant. Short Name: In re Kedne L. Citation: 45 A.D.3d 843 | 846 N.Y.S.2d 605 (Reporter numbers on top and in brackets). HTML structure: Details midpage-ps 843 Case body. Pagination: Starts at 843. In-line page break on 844. In-line page break on 845. Wait, Kedne L. starts on 843. The text on 843: “In the Matter of KEDNE L., ... identification testimony.” (This is the summary/headnote block). The opinion actually begins after this block on page 844: “Ordered that the appeal...” No, usually AD3d starts with the summary, then the “Ordered...” paragraph, then thе reasoning. The whole thing is the opinion document in the reporter. Okay, let‘s format. Citations to check: Matter of Terrance D., 44 AD3d 656 [2007] Matter of Rasahkeliai R., 40 AD3d 765 [2007] Matter of Ricky A., 11 AD3d 532, 532-533 [2004] Matter of Jerrol H., 19 AD3d 693 [2005] Matter of Bernell R.W., 7 AD3d 724 [2004] Penal Law § 120.00 [1] Penal Law § 485.05 [1] [a], [b] Matter of Sydney N., 42 AD3d 539, 540 [2007] Matter оf Kristie II., 252 AD2d 807 [1998] Matter of Kisha J., 225 AD2d 549 [1996] People v. Terrero, 31 AD3d 672, 673 [2006] Matter of Anisha McG., 27 AD3d 749, 750 [2006] Penal Law §§ 120.15, 485.05 [1] [a], [b] Matter of Shatasia C., 35 AD3d 855 [2006] Matter of John F., 12 AD3d 509, 510 [2004] Matter of Joel G., 39 AD3d 644, 645 [2007] People v. Romero, 7 NY3d 633, 644-645 [2006] CPL 470.15 [5] Matter of Matrice L., 25 AD3d 555 [2006] People v. Brisco, 99 NY2d 596, 597 [2003] People v. Clinding, 40 AD3d 1117 [2007] Matter of David B., 244 AD2d 405 [1997] Laws: Family Court Act articlе 3 -> jurisdiction=“NY” cite=“N.Y. Fam. Ct. Act art. 3” Penal Law -> jurisdiction=“NY” cite=“N.Y. Penal Law ...” CPL -> jurisdiction=“NY” cite=“N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law ...” One detail: “In a juvenile delinquency proceeding...” paragraph on 843. It‘s bold/bracketed citation too. Then 844 starts “Ordered that...“. One correction: The OCR on page 844 has a typo “Matter ofRasahkeliai R.“. I must use the text from the image: “Matter of Rasahkeliai R.“. Same for “People v Glinding” -> “People v Clinding“. OCR says “Glinding“, image says “Clinding“. I‘ll follow image. OCR also says “sault in the third degree... menacing degree a hate crime (six counts), in the third as adjudged...“. The image says: “sault in the third degree as a hate crime (four counts) and menacing in the third degree as a hate crime (six counts), adjudged...“. I will fix the OCR based on the image. Final check on Kedne L. start: “In the Matter of KEDNE L., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellаnt. [846 NYS2d 605]—In a juvenile delinquency proceeding...” (There is a square bullet point in the image). I will start with page 843. Wait, regarding the date: I‘ll check if there‘s any date in the OCR for the surrounding cases. No. But the decisions are typically 2007 (based on the citations used). I‘ll omit `date` attribute or use the year from citations if required, but the instructions say only from source. I‘ll omit it. Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. (Found from judges Crane, J.P., Fisher, Carni, McCarthy in the case above and Miller, Ritter, Skelos, Covello in Kedne L. These are Sеcond Dept judges). Short Name: Kedne L. (The “In the Matter of” part is procedural). Short name “In re Kedne L.” is standard. One more thing: The summary paragraph on 843 is effectively the syllabus/pre-opinion content in this reporter format. Citations in summary: Family Court Act article 3 ->