New York Court of Appeals, 1980

Matter of F.

New York Court of Appeals · Decided February 5, 1980 · Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer Concur in Memoranda

49 N.Y.2d 730

Cases that cite this one

12 later published cases cite this decision.

People v. McFadden (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
In re Jamel S. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
In re Donald J. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
In re Daniel C. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
In re Andre L. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1994)
In re Emerson D. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1993)
In re Aida S. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1993)
People v. Green (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1989)
People v. Robinson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1987)
In re Carlos C. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1987)
People v. Allen (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1985)
People v. Hurk (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1985)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

49 N.Y.2d 730 (1980)

In the Matter of Wade F., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant.

Court of Appeals of the State of New York.

Submitted January 2, 1980.Decided February 5, 1980.

Barbara B. Butler, William E. Hellerstein and Charles Schinitsky for appellant.

Allen G. Schwartz, Corporation Counsel (Alexander J. Wulwich and Carolyn E. Demarest of counsel), for respondent.

Chief Judge COOKE and Judges JASEN, GABRIELLI, JONES, WACHTLER, FUCHSBERG and MEYER concur in memoranda.

*731MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs. The position appellant Wade F. took in relation to the complaining witness, the fact that the latter was confined between the three boys and a car, the time at which Wade took up his position in relation to Christopher's threatened use of the razor, the concerted movement of the three boys away from the scene were sufficient to sustain the finding that Wade participated in an act which if committed by an adult would constitute robbery in the first degree.

Order affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.