In re Adina Mc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Adina Mc.

91 A.D.3d 651, 935 N.Y.2d 905

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 10, 2012·Published

Opinion

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the presentment agency (see Matter of David H., 69 NY2d 792, 793 [1987]; cf. People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the appellant committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of assault in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree (see Family Ct Act § 342.2 [2]; cf. People v Edmondson, [652]*652281 AD2d 184, 185 [2001]). Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see Matter of Michale A.C., 73 AD3d 1042, 1043 [2010]; cf. CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the opportunity of the finder of fact to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see Matter of Hasan C., 59 AD3d 617, 617-618 [2009]; cf. People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004], cert denied 542 US 946 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon our review of the record, we are satisfied that the. Family Court’s determination was not against the weight of the evidence (cf. People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]). Florio, J.E, Belen, Roman and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

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

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the presentment agency (see Matter of David H., 69 NY2d 792, 793 [1987]; cf. People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the appellant committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of assault in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree (see Family Ct Act § 342.2 [2]; cf. People v Edmondson, [652]*652281 AD2d 184, 185 [2001]). Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see Matter of Michale A.C., 73 AD3d 1042, 1043 [2010]; cf. CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the opportunity of the finder of fact to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see Matter of Hasan C., 59 AD3d 617, 617-618 [2009]; cf. People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004], cert denied 542 US 946 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon our review of the record, we are satisfied that the. Family Court’s determination was not against the weight of the evidence (cf. People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]). Florio, J.E, Belen, Roman and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

In re Adina Mc., 91 A.D.3d 651, 935 N.Y.2d 905 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

91 A.D.3d 651 (In re Adina Mc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related