Legal Opinion
In re Jorge R.
New York City Family Court
Decided August 5, 1983PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Jack Turret, J.
Resolution of this motion to preclude concerns a technicality versus the spirit of the law. Though respondent did not receive formal written notice of an alleged statement made by him intended to be used at trial as prescribed in section 330.2 of the Family Court Act (L 1982, ch 920, as amd by L 1983, ch 398, § 24, July 1, 1983),* he did receive notice of its existence in the petition filed on May 24, 1983 (respondent-made statements). That petitioner so informed respondent, was an indication to him of the intention of the petitioner to use these statements.…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- People v. HuntleyNew York Court of Appeals · 1965
- People v. GreerNew York Court of Appeals · 1977
- People v. BriggsNew York Court of Appeals · 1975
- People v. BrownAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1981
- People v. RiveraNew York Court of Appeals · 1981
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- People v. Wright, New York County Courts1985
- In re Eddie M.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1985
- In re Shannon G.New York Family Court · 1984