In re Dorian L.

92 A.D.3d 530, 939 N.Y.2d 345

Opinion

[531] 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 credibility determinations. The evidence disproved appellant’s justification defense beyond a reasonable doubt.

To the extent the court erred in denying appellant’s request for a missing witness charge, the error was harmless, as there was overwhelming evidence of appellant’s guilt (see People v Fields, 76 NY2d 761 [1990]; People v Abelson, 27 AD3d 301 [2006]). Appellant’s remaining contention is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject it on the merits. Concur — Friedman, J.E, Sweeny, Acosta, Renwick and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

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

In re Dorian L., 92 A.D.3d 530, 939 N.Y.2d 345 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

92 A.D.3d 530 (In re Dorian L.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Danielson
880 N.E.2d 1 (New York Court of Appeals, 2007)
People v. Fields
76 N.Y.2d 761 (New York Court of Appeals, 1990)
People v. Abelson
27 A.D.3d 301 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)