In re Antonio C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Antonio C.

63 A.D.3d 531, 880 N.Y.S.2d 477

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

DecidedJune 16, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 63 A.D.3d 531 (In re Antonio 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 Antonio C., 63 A.D.3d 531, 880 N.Y.S.2d 477 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Juan M. Merchan, J.), entered on or about October 17, 2007, 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 crimes of robbery in the second degree, grand larceny in the fourth degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, and placed him on probation for a period of 18 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s finding was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the court’s determination to credit the account of the incident given by the victim, while discrediting that given by appellant. Concur—Tom, J.E, Friedman, Nardelli, Buckley and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

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

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Juan M. Merchan, J.), entered on or about October 17, 2007, 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 crimes of robbery in the second degree, grand larceny in the fourth degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, and placed him on probation for a period of 18 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s finding was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the court’s determination to credit the account of the incident given by the victim, while discrediting that given by appellant. Concur—Tom, J.E, Friedman, Nardelli, Buckley and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 A.D.3d 531, 880 N.Y.S.2d 477, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-antonio-c-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack