In re Wader A., 47 A.D.3d 408 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008). · Go Syfert
In re Wader A., 47 A.D.3d 408 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
5 citation events (5 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Grocery Delivery E-Servs. USA, Inc. v. Flynn (nyappdiv, 2022-01-27)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Grocery Delivery E-Servs. USA, Inc. v. Flynn
N.Y. App. Div. · 2022 · confidence medium
Co. Inc. , 47 AD3d 408, 409 [1st Dept 2008]) but on the equitable lien it has over the insurance proceeds to the extent of its loss claim due to Mariner's failure to abide by its agreement to name plaintiff as an additional insured on the product recall insurance policy ( see Rosario-Paolo, Inc. v C & M Pizza Rest., Inc. , 84 NY2d 379, 383 [1994]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Lynn v. Maida
N.Y. App. Div. · 2019 · confidence medium
Co. Inc. , 47 AD3d 408, 409 [1st Dept 2008]; Peters Griffin Woodward, Inc. v WCSC, Inc. , 88 AD2d 883, 884 [1st Dept 1982]; see also Interstate Adjusters v First Fid.
cited Cited as authority (rule) SWEGAN, RICHARD B. v. SVENSON, ERIC
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Co. Inc., 47 AD3d 408, 409 [2008]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Wader A., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jan 3, 2008.
47 A.D.3d 408
Published

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Nelida Malave-Gonzalez, J.), entered on or about December 13, 2006, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent upon a fact-finding determination that he had committed acts which, if perpetrated by an adult, would constitute the crimes of unauthorized use of a vehicle in the third degree and possession of burglar’s tools, and imposed a conditional discharge for a period of 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Appellant’s arguments concerning the sufficiency and weight of the evidence are similar to arguments this Court rejected on a companion appeal (Matter of Daniel C., 46 AD3d 259 [2007]), and there is no reason to reach a different result herein. There is no merit to appellant’s argument that the supporting deposition was insufficient because it was only signed by the vehicle’s lawful custodian, who was not the title holder (see Penal Law § 155.00 [5] [owner includes any person with superior right of possession]; Matter of Michael S., 262 AD2d 6, 7 [1999], lv denied 94 NY2d 752 [1999]). Concur—Andrias, J.P., Nardelli, Buckley and Catterson, JJ.