In re Carlito T.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Carlito T.

38 A.D.3d 359, 830 N.Y.S.2d 899

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

DecidedMarch 20, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 38 A.D.3d 359 (In re Carlito T.) 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 Carlito T., 38 A.D.3d 359, 830 N.Y.S.2d 899 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Mary E. Bednar, J.), entered February 23, 2006, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that he committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of robbery in the second degree, petit larceny, criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree and attempted assault in the third 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. 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 was a participant in the crime and not a bystander. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P, Friedman, Buckley, Catterson and Malone, JJ.

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

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Mary E. Bednar, J.), entered February 23, 2006, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that he committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of robbery in the second degree, petit larceny, criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree and attempted assault in the third 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. 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 was a participant in the crime and not a bystander. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P, Friedman, Buckley, Catterson and Malone, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 A.D.3d 359, 830 N.Y.S.2d 899, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-carlito-t-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack