In re Daytrill H.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Daytrill H.

32 A.D.3d 736, 821 N.Y.S.2d 175

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

DecidedSeptember 19, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 32 A.D.3d 736 (In re Daytrill H.) 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 Daytrill H., 32 A.D.3d 736, 821 N.Y.S.2d 175 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Alma Cordova, J.), entered on or about January 26, 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 petit larceny and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, and imposed a conditional discharge with restitution in the amount of $100, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s finding was based on legally sufficient evidence. The evidence supported the inference of larcenous intent (see Penal Law § 155.05 [1]; § 155.00 [3], [4]; People v Kirnon, 39 AD2d 666, 667 [1972], affd 31 NY2d 877 [1972]; cf. People v Tse, 261 AD2d 309 [1999], lv denied 93 NY2d 1006 [1999]), and appellant’s theory that he is guilty, at most, of misapplication of property (Penal Law § 165.00) is supported only by his self-serving statements to the victim, which the court was entitled to discredit.

The court’s calculation of the amount of restitution was supported by the record, which included evidence that appellant’s acts rendered the victim’s cell phone inoperable, and the restitution order was a proper exercise of discretion (see e.g. Matter of Antonio M., 214 AD2d 571 [1995]; Matter of James A., 205 AD2d [737]*737621 [1994]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Catterson, McGuire and Malone, JJ.

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

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Alma Cordova, J.), entered on or about January 26, 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 petit larceny and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, and imposed a conditional discharge with restitution in the amount of $100, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s finding was based on legally sufficient evidence. The evidence supported the inference of larcenous intent (see Penal Law § 155.05 [1]; § 155.00 [3], [4]; People v Kirnon, 39 AD2d 666, 667 [1972], affd 31 NY2d 877 [1972]; cf. People v Tse, 261 AD2d 309 [1999], lv denied 93 NY2d 1006 [1999]), and appellant’s theory that he is guilty, at most, of misapplication of property (Penal Law § 165.00) is supported only by his self-serving statements to the victim, which the court was entitled to discredit.

The court’s calculation of the amount of restitution was supported by the record, which included evidence that appellant’s acts rendered the victim’s cell phone inoperable, and the restitution order was a proper exercise of discretion (see e.g. Matter of Antonio M., 214 AD2d 571 [1995]; Matter of James A., 205 AD2d [737]*737621 [1994]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Catterson, McGuire and Malone, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 A.D.3d 736, 821 N.Y.S.2d 175, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-daytrill-h-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack