In re Angel V., 247 A.D.2d 343 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998). · Go Syfert
In re Angel V., 247 A.D.2d 343 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
5 citation events (3 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Stuckey v. United States (nysd, 2016-12-01)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (quoted) Stuckey v. United States (2×)
S.D.N.Y. · 2016 · quote attribution · 2 verbatim quotes · confidence low
the presentment agency was not required to prove that intended or knew that the accomplice would threaten the immediate use of a dangerous instrument.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Gage
N.Y. App. Div. · 1999 · signal: see also · confidence low
Further, this strict liability for an aggravating circumstance attaches to an accomplice, regardless of the latter’s degree of intent, knowledge or conduct with respect to the aggravating circumstance (see, id.; People v Mitchell, 235 AD2d 321 , lv denied 90 NY2d 861 ; People v Pagan, 227 AD2d 133 , lv denied 88 NY2d 991 ; see also, Matter of Angel V., 247 AD2d 343 , lv denied 92 NY2d 803 ; People v Santiago, 169 AD2d 557 , lv denied 77 NY2d 1000 ; Donnino, Practice Commentary, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 39, Penal Law § 20.00, at 72; op. cit., art 160, at 318).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Angel V., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Feb 26, 1998.
247 A.D.2d 343
Andrias, Mazzarelli, Milonas, Williams.
Cited by 4 opinions  |  Published
1 passages pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 61%
Citer courts: S.D. New York (2)

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Mary Bednar, J.), entered February 14, 1997, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that appellant committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of robbery in the first and second degrees, and placed him with the Division for Youth for a period of 3 years, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s findings were based on legally sufficient evidence to establish the charge of robbery in the first degree. The presentment agency was not required to prove that appellant intended or knew that the accomplice would threaten the immediate use of a dangerous instrument (People v Mitchell, 235 AD2d 321, lv denied 90 NY2d 861; People v Pagan, 227 AD2d 133, lv denied 88 NY2d 991). Respondent agency did establish the required specific intent, to wit, intent to use force to take[*344] the property of another, and there was sufficient evidence that appellant participated in the joint robbery of both victims.

Concur — Milonas, J. P., Williams, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.