Legal Opinion
In re Jose D.
New York Court of Appeals
Decided October 8, 1985PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs.
Appellant, who has been adjudicated a juvenile delinquent, complains that his attorney was not permitted to be present at the diagnostic mental study conducted subsequent to the fact-finding hearing and prior to the dispositional hearing (Family Ct Act § 351.1 [1]). The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed without opinion and he appeals, purportedly as of right, contending that he had a constitutional right to counsel’s presence and that the failure to administer Miranda warnings at the…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- In Re GAULTSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Estelle v. SmithSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- McKeiver v. PennsylvaniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Schall v. MartinSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Lee v. County Ct. of Erie CountyNew York Court of Appeals · 1971
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Porter v. Allstate InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1992
- People v. RichardsonNew York Supreme Court · 1993
- Cicchetti v. General Accident InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2000
- Moe v. New York City Department of ProbationNew York Supreme Court · 1986
- People v. PalazoNew York Supreme Court · 1990