In re Aaron D.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Aaron D.

38 A.D.3d 296, 832 N.Y.S.2d 174

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 13, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 38 A.D.3d 296 (In re Aaron D.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Aaron D., 38 A.D.3d 296, 832 N.Y.S.2d 174 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Family Court, New York County (Mary E. Bednar, J.), entered on or about November 10, 2005, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that he had committed acts, which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of attempted petit larceny, and placed him on probation for a period of 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s finding was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis for disturbing the court’s determinations concerning credibility (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). The evidence established that appellant took possession of a bag that belonged to a fellow student, rummaged through it, and only [297]*297placed it back on a table when commanded to do so by a school official. The evidence negated any nonlarcenous explanation for defendant’s behavior, and supported the conclusion that appellant intended to steal the victim’s property (see Matter of Pierre B., 210 AD2d 3 [1994]). Although the victim did not testify, the evidence also supported the inference that appellant had no permission to take her property (see People v Borrero, 26 NY2d 430, 435-436 [1970]; People v Shurn, 69 AD2d 64, 67 [1979]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.E, Marlow, Buckley, Sweeny and Kavanagh, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Family Court, New York County (Mary E. Bednar, J.), entered on or about November 10, 2005, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that he had committed acts, which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of attempted petit larceny, and placed him on probation for a period of 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s finding was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis for disturbing the court’s determinations concerning credibility (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). The evidence established that appellant took possession of a bag that belonged to a fellow student, rummaged through it, and only [297]*297placed it back on a table when commanded to do so by a school official. The evidence negated any nonlarcenous explanation for defendant’s behavior, and supported the conclusion that appellant intended to steal the victim’s property (see Matter of Pierre B., 210 AD2d 3 [1994]). Although the victim did not testify, the evidence also supported the inference that appellant had no permission to take her property (see People v Borrero, 26 NY2d 430, 435-436 [1970]; People v Shurn, 69 AD2d 64, 67 [1979]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.E, Marlow, Buckley, Sweeny and Kavanagh, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 A.D.3d 296, 832 N.Y.S.2d 174, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-aaron-d-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack