In re Carysse R.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Carysse R.

90 A.D.3d 521, 934 N.Y.2d 312

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

DecidedDecember 15, 2011

StatusPublished

This text of 90 A.D.3d 521 (In re Carysse R.) 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 Carysse R., 90 A.D.3d 521, 934 N.Y.2d 312 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

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 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the court’s credibility determinations. There was competent evidence that appellant was suspended from school, that school safety agents knew of the suspension, and that the agents thus had a duty to remove appellant from the premises. Accordingly, the agents were performing an “official function” within the meaning of Penal Law § 195.05 when they attempted to carry out that duty. Appellant’s intent to cause physical injury to an agent was readily inferable from testimony that appellant repeatedly punched and kicked the agent.

We have considered and rejected appellant’s remaining claims, including her missing witness argument. Concur — Tom, J.P., Friedman, Freedman, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

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 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the court’s credibility determinations. There was competent evidence that appellant was suspended from school, that school safety agents knew of the suspension, and that the agents thus had a duty to remove appellant from the premises. Accordingly, the agents were performing an “official function” within the meaning of Penal Law § 195.05 when they attempted to carry out that duty. Appellant’s intent to cause physical injury to an agent was readily inferable from testimony that appellant repeatedly punched and kicked the agent.

We have considered and rejected appellant’s remaining claims, including her missing witness argument. Concur — Tom, J.P., Friedman, Freedman, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

90 A.D.3d 521, 934 N.Y.2d 312, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-carysse-r-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack