In re Jeffrey M.
New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
62 App. Div. 2d 858, 406 N.Y.S.2d 71 (1978)
- Written by Meredith Hamilton Alley, JD
Facts
Jeffrey M. (defendant) was 15 years old and had no record of delinquency. One cold night, Jeffrey and his friends were stranded away from home and asked the police for help. The police advised them to hitchhike. Hitchhiking was unsuccessful, so Jeffrey and the friends again asked the police for help. The police drove Jeffrey and the friends to a different highway with more traffic and a better chance of finding a ride, but the plan failed. As a last resort, one of the friends obtained a car that did not belong to him and drove Jeffrey and the friends home. A police officer (plaintiff) filed a delinquency petition in family court alleging that Jeffrey and the friends were delinquent as a result of having possession and control of the car of another. At Jeffrey’s delinquency hearing, the court adjourned the matter in contemplation of dismissal for 12 months, on the condition that Jeffrey attend school, participate in a community program, and use cars only in the presence of an adult. An adjournment in contemplation of dismissal (ACD) meant that if Jeffrey met the court’s conditions, the petition would be dismissed at the end of the 12 months. Jeffrey appealed, arguing that the ACD exceeded the statutory maximum period of six months.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Lupiano, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.