In re Daunte Jordan M.
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.
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
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
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.