In re Daunte Jordan M.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Daunte Jordan M.

68 A.D.3d 1116, 890 N.Y.2d 344

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 22, 2009·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the presentment agency (see Family Ct Act § 342.2 [2]; Matter of David H., 69 NY2d 792 [1987]; cf People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to support the findings of fact. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (cf. CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the trier of fact’s opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004], cert [1117] denied 542 US 946 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the findings of fact were not against the weight of the evidence (cf. People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Fisher, J.E, Angiolillo, Dickerson and Leventhal, JJ., concur.

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

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the presentment agency (see Family Ct Act § 342.2 [2]; Matter of David H., 69 NY2d 792 [1987]; cf People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to support the findings of fact. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (cf. CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the trier of fact’s opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004], cert [1117] denied 542 US 946 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the findings of fact were not against the weight of the evidence (cf. People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Fisher, J.E, Angiolillo, Dickerson and Leventhal, JJ., concur.

In re Daunte Jordan M., 68 A.D.3d 1116, 890 N.Y.2d 344 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

68 A.D.3d 1116 (In re Daunte Jordan M.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related