In re Chaquoya J.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Chaquoya J.

17 A.D.3d 111, 791 N.Y.S.2d 824, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3461

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

DecidedApril 5, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 17 A.D.3d 111 (In re Chaquoya J.) 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 Chaquoya J., 17 A.D.3d 111, 791 N.Y.S.2d 824, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3461 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Harold J. Lynch, J.), entered on or about November 12, 2003, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that she committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of assault in the third degree, and placed her on probation for a period of 12 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, including its resolution of conflicting testimony (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]). We note that the victim specifically recalled that appellant was one of the persons who struck her. Concur—Buckley, EJ., Tom, Andrias, Friedman and Sullivan, JJ.

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

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Harold J. Lynch, J.), entered on or about November 12, 2003, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that she committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of assault in the third degree, and placed her on probation for a period of 12 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, including its resolution of conflicting testimony (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]). We note that the victim specifically recalled that appellant was one of the persons who struck her. Concur—Buckley, EJ., Tom, Andrias, Friedman and Sullivan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 A.D.3d 111, 791 N.Y.S.2d 824, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3461, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-chaquoya-j-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack