In re Dimetreus A.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Dimetreus A.

60 A.D.3d 524, 874 N.Y.S.2d 376

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

DecidedMarch 19, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 60 A.D.3d 524 (In re Dimetreus A.) 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 Dimetreus A., 60 A.D.3d 524, 874 N.Y.S.2d 376 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Susan R. Larabee, J.), entered on or about June 12, 2008, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent upon a fact-finding determination that he had committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of attempted robbery in the first and second degrees and menacing in the second degree, and placed him with the Office of Children and Family Services for a period of 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s finding was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the court’s decision to credit the complainant’s testimony and not that of appellant. Concur — Tom, J.P., Saxe, Sweeny, Acosta and Freedman, JJ.

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

— Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Susan R. Larabee, J.), entered on or about June 12, 2008, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent upon a fact-finding determination that he had committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of attempted robbery in the first and second degrees and menacing in the second degree, and placed him with the Office of Children and Family Services for a period of 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s finding was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the court’s decision to credit the complainant’s testimony and not that of appellant. Concur — Tom, J.P., Saxe, Sweeny, Acosta and Freedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

60 A.D.3d 524, 874 N.Y.S.2d 376, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-dimetreus-a-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack