In re Eddie J.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Eddie J.

68 A.D.3d 870, 889 N.Y.2d 485

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

DecidedDecember 8, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 68 A.D.3d 870 (In re Eddie J.) 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 Eddie J., 68 A.D.3d 870, 889 N.Y.2d 485 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Viewing the evidence adduced at the fact-finding hearing in the light most favorable to the presentment agency, we find that it was legally sufficient to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the appellant committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of burglary in the second degree, criminal mischief in the fourth degree, petit larceny, and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree (see Family Ct Act § 342.2 [2]; Matter of Brandon C., 66 AD3d 893 [2009]). Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see Matter of Isaiah Mc., 66 AD3d 1025 [2009]; cf. CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the trier of fact’s opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor. Upon our independent review of the record, we are satisfied that the fact-finding determination was not against the weight of the evidence (see Matter of Darnell C., 66 AD3d 771 [2009]). Fisher, J.P., Angiolillo, Lott and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

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

Viewing the evidence adduced at the fact-finding hearing in the light most favorable to the presentment agency, we find that it was legally sufficient to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the appellant committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of burglary in the second degree, criminal mischief in the fourth degree, petit larceny, and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree (see Family Ct Act § 342.2 [2]; Matter of Brandon C., 66 AD3d 893 [2009]). Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see Matter of Isaiah Mc., 66 AD3d 1025 [2009]; cf. CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the trier of fact’s opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor. Upon our independent review of the record, we are satisfied that the fact-finding determination was not against the weight of the evidence (see Matter of Darnell C., 66 AD3d 771 [2009]). Fisher, J.P., Angiolillo, Lott and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

68 A.D.3d 870, 889 N.Y.2d 485, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-eddie-j-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack