In re Daunte Jordan M.

68 A.D.3d 1116, 890 N.Y.2d 344
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 22, 2009
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

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

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]*1117denied 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

Related

In re Rauon G.
71 A.D.3d 675 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
68 A.D.3d 1116, 890 N.Y.2d 344, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-daunte-jordan-m-nyappdiv-2009.