In re Charles C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Charles C.

309 A.D.2d 516, 764 N.Y.S.2d 701, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10022

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

DecidedOctober 2, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 309 A.D.2d 516 (In re Charles C.) 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 Charles C., 309 A.D.2d 516, 764 N.Y.S.2d 701, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10022 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Mary Bednar, J.), entered on or about April 25, 2002, 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 obstructing governmental administration in the second degree and attempted assault in the third [517]*517degree, and placed him on probation for two years, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s finding, which rejected appellant’s justification defense, 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. The evidence warranted the conclusion that when appellant repeatedly kicked a school safety agent, he did so with intent to cause physical injury, and that he came dangerously close to doing so (see People v Bracey, 41 NY2d 296 [1977]). Concur— Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Saxe and Williams, 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 Bednar, J.), entered on or about April 25, 2002, 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 obstructing governmental administration in the second degree and attempted assault in the third [517]*517degree, and placed him on probation for two years, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s finding, which rejected appellant’s justification defense, 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. The evidence warranted the conclusion that when appellant repeatedly kicked a school safety agent, he did so with intent to cause physical injury, and that he came dangerously close to doing so (see People v Bracey, 41 NY2d 296 [1977]). Concur— Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Saxe and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

309 A.D.2d 516, 764 N.Y.S.2d 701, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10022, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-charles-c-nyappdiv-2003.