In re Daniel C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Daniel C.

46 A.D.3d 259, 847 N.Y.S.2d 63

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

DecidedDecember 4, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 46 A.D.3d 259 (In re Daniel 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 Daniel C., 46 A.D.3d 259, 847 N.Y.S.2d 63 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Nelida Malave-Gonzalez, J.), entered on or about December 21, 2006, 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 unauthorized use of a vehicle in the third degree and possession of burglar’s tools, and placed him on probation for a period of 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the presentment agency (see Matter of David H., 69 NY2d 792, 793 [1987]; Matter of Denzel F., 44 AD3d 389, 389 [2007]), and according Family Court’s credibility and factual determinations the same weight as a jury verdict (see id., Matter of Michael D., 109 AD2d 633, 634 [1985], affd for reasons stated below 66 NY2d 843 [1985]), we conclude that the findings of fact on which appellant’s delinquency adjudication was based were supported by sufficient evidence (see People v Roby, 39 NY2d 69 [1976]; People v McCaleb, 25 NY2d 394 [1969]). We also find that the court’s findings comported with the weight of the evidence. Accordingly, the order of disposition must be affirmed. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Friedman, Marlow and Williams, JJ.

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

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Nelida Malave-Gonzalez, J.), entered on or about December 21, 2006, 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 unauthorized use of a vehicle in the third degree and possession of burglar’s tools, and placed him on probation for a period of 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the presentment agency (see Matter of David H., 69 NY2d 792, 793 [1987]; Matter of Denzel F., 44 AD3d 389, 389 [2007]), and according Family Court’s credibility and factual determinations the same weight as a jury verdict (see id., Matter of Michael D., 109 AD2d 633, 634 [1985], affd for reasons stated below 66 NY2d 843 [1985]), we conclude that the findings of fact on which appellant’s delinquency adjudication was based were supported by sufficient evidence (see People v Roby, 39 NY2d 69 [1976]; People v McCaleb, 25 NY2d 394 [1969]). We also find that the court’s findings comported with the weight of the evidence. Accordingly, the order of disposition must be affirmed. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Friedman, Marlow and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

46 A.D.3d 259, 847 N.Y.S.2d 63, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-daniel-c-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack