In re Dameon M.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Dameon M.

7 A.D.3d 348, 775 N.Y.S.2d 863, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6743

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

DecidedMay 13, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 7 A.D.3d 348 (In re Dameon M.) 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 Dameon M., 7 A.D.3d 348, 775 N.Y.S.2d 863, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6743 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Mary E. Bednar, J.), entered on or about December 2, 2003, 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 attempted assault in the third degree and menacing in the third degree, and placed him on probation for 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s fact-finding determination was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). There is no basis for disturbing the court’s determinations concerning credibility, including its resolution of inconsistencies in testimony. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Sullivan, Ellerin 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 E. Bednar, J.), entered on or about December 2, 2003, 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 attempted assault in the third degree and menacing in the third degree, and placed him on probation for 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s fact-finding determination was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). There is no basis for disturbing the court’s determinations concerning credibility, including its resolution of inconsistencies in testimony. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Sullivan, Ellerin and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 A.D.3d 348, 775 N.Y.S.2d 863, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6743, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-dameon-m-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack