Legal Opinion
In re David G.
New York City Family Court
Decided August 22, 1984PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Judith Sheindlin, J.
The issue presented in each of the above-captioned motions to reargue is whether, pursuant to section 331.4 of the Family Court Act, the presentment agency is required to provide the respondent with the transcript of the minutes of a prior trial of a corespondent.*
Respondent G. and a corespondent were arrested on July 25, 1983. Following removal of respondent G.’s case from the Criminal Court to the Family Court pursuant to CPL 180.75, this respondent failed to appear at arraignment in the Family Court and a warrant was issued for his arrest on August…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Jencks v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- People v. RosarioNew York Court of Appeals · 1961
- In re Kelvin D.New York Court of Appeals · 1976
- In re John M.New York City Family Court · 1980
- In re Bertha K.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1977
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- People v. AhaltNew York Supreme Court · 1988
- People v. GrissomCriminal Court of the City of New York · 1985