In re Allison C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Allison C.

60 A.D.3d 762

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

DecidedMarch 10, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 60 A.D.3d 762 (In re Allison C.) 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 Allison C., 60 A.D.3d 762 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Jn -]-- juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, the appeal is from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Queens County (Hunt, J.), dated November 27, 2007, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court dated October 18, 2007, made after a hearing, finding that the appellant had acts which, if committed by an adult, would have the crimes of robbery in the second degree (two counts), robbery in the third degree, attempted robbery in the third degree, grand larceny in the fourth degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, attempted assault in the third degree, and menacing in the third degree, adjudged her to be a juvenile delinquent and placed her under the supervision of the Queens County Department of Probation for a period of two years. The appeal from the order of disposition brings up for review the fact-finding order.

Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the agency (see Family preAct § 342.2 [2]; Matter of David H., 69 NY2d 792 [1987]; cf. People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that the evidence was legally sufficient to the findings of fact supPenal Law § 120.15; Matter (cf. Eric C., 281 AD2d 543, 544 [2001]).

In fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see cf CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the factfinder’s opportunity to view the hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004], cert denied 542 US 946 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing [763]*763the record here, we are satisfied that the findings of fact were not against the weight of the evidence (cf. People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]). Fisher, J.P., Covello, Angiolillo and Leventhal, JJ, concur.

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

Jn -]-- juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, the appeal is from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Queens County (Hunt, J.), dated November 27, 2007, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court dated October 18, 2007, made after a hearing, finding that the appellant had acts which, if committed by an adult, would have the crimes of robbery in the second degree (two counts), robbery in the third degree, attempted robbery in the third degree, grand larceny in the fourth degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, attempted assault in the third degree, and menacing in the third degree, adjudged her to be a juvenile delinquent and placed her under the supervision of the Queens County Department of Probation for a period of two years. The appeal from the order of disposition brings up for review the fact-finding order.

Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the agency (see Family preAct § 342.2 [2]; Matter of David H., 69 NY2d 792 [1987]; cf. People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that the evidence was legally sufficient to the findings of fact supPenal Law § 120.15; Matter (cf. Eric C., 281 AD2d 543, 544 [2001]).

In fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see cf CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the factfinder’s opportunity to view the hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004], cert denied 542 US 946 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing [763]*763the record here, we are satisfied that the findings of fact were not against the weight of the evidence (cf. People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]). Fisher, J.P., Covello, Angiolillo and Leventhal, JJ, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

60 A.D.3d 762, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-allison-c-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack