In re Carlos H.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Carlos H.

261 A.D.2d 253, 687 N.Y.S.2d 901, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5483

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

DecidedMay 20, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 261 A.D.2d 253 (In re Carlos H.) 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 Carlos H., 261 A.D.2d 253, 687 N.Y.S.2d 901, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5483 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Stewart Weinstein, J.), entered on or about March 9, 1998, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that appellant committed acts which, if committed by an adult, [254]*254would constitute the crimes of arson in the second degree and reckless endangerment in the second degree, and placed him on probation for a period of 18 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s findings were based on legally sufficient evidence and were not against the weight of the evidence. We see no reason to disturb the court’s credibility determinations, which are supported by the record. We note that the record amply supports the court’s conclusion that the inconsistency in testimony between the agency’s two witnesses regarding the exact location of the fire set by appellant was predicated on an inconsequential mistake of fact by one of the witnesses. Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Rosenberger, Wallach and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Stewart Weinstein, J.), entered on or about March 9, 1998, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that appellant committed acts which, if committed by an adult, [254]*254would constitute the crimes of arson in the second degree and reckless endangerment in the second degree, and placed him on probation for a period of 18 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s findings were based on legally sufficient evidence and were not against the weight of the evidence. We see no reason to disturb the court’s credibility determinations, which are supported by the record. We note that the record amply supports the court’s conclusion that the inconsistency in testimony between the agency’s two witnesses regarding the exact location of the fire set by appellant was predicated on an inconsequential mistake of fact by one of the witnesses. Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Rosenberger, Wallach and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 A.D.2d 253, 687 N.Y.S.2d 901, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5483, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-carlos-h-nyappdiv-1999.