In re Chanel G.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Chanel G.

309 A.D.2d 603, 765 N.Y.S.2d 781, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10692

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

DecidedOctober 16, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 309 A.D.2d 603 (In re Chanel G.) 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 Chanel G., 309 A.D.2d 603, 765 N.Y.S.2d 781, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10692 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Myrna Martinez-Perez, J.), entered on or about July 25, 2002, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that she committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of arson in the second degree, attempted assault in the first degree, reckless endangerment in the first degree, criminal mischief in the fourth degree and reckless endangerment of property, and placed her on probation for 24 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 Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). The requisite mens rea could be readily inferred from appellant’s actions, as well as from the [604]*604statement she made to the victim upon setting a fire at the victim’s door, which clearly constituted a threat and not a warning. We have considered and rejected appellant’s remaining arguments. Concur — Buckley, P.J., Tom, Saxe, Sullivan and Rosenberger, JJ.

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

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Myrna Martinez-Perez, J.), entered on or about July 25, 2002, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that she committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of arson in the second degree, attempted assault in the first degree, reckless endangerment in the first degree, criminal mischief in the fourth degree and reckless endangerment of property, and placed her on probation for 24 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 Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). The requisite mens rea could be readily inferred from appellant’s actions, as well as from the [604]*604statement she made to the victim upon setting a fire at the victim’s door, which clearly constituted a threat and not a warning. We have considered and rejected appellant’s remaining arguments. Concur — Buckley, P.J., Tom, Saxe, Sullivan and Rosenberger, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

309 A.D.2d 603, 765 N.Y.S.2d 781, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10692, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-chanel-g-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack