In re Brandon S.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Brandon S.

117 A.D.3d 483, 984 N.Y.S.2d 596

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

DecidedMay 8, 2014

StatusPublished

This text of 117 A.D.3d 483 (In re Brandon S.) 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 Brandon S., 117 A.D.3d 483, 984 N.Y.S.2d 596 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Family Court, New York County (Clark V. Richardson, J.), entered on or about April 10, 2013, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination (Family Court, [484]*484Rockland County [Sherri L. Eisenpress, J.]) that he committed an act that, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of sexual abuse in the first degree, and placed him on probation for a period of 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s finding 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 credibility determinations, including its evaluation of inconsistencies.

Concur— Saxe, J.E, Moskowitz, Freedman, Gische and Kapnick, JJ.

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

Order, Family Court, New York County (Clark V. Richardson, J.), entered on or about April 10, 2013, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination (Family Court, [484]*484Rockland County [Sherri L. Eisenpress, J.]) that he committed an act that, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of sexual abuse in the first degree, and placed him on probation for a period of 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s finding 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 credibility determinations, including its evaluation of inconsistencies.

Concur— Saxe, J.E, Moskowitz, Freedman, Gische and Kapnick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

117 A.D.3d 483, 984 N.Y.S.2d 596, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-brandon-s-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack