In re Elijah Y.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Elijah Y.

24 A.D.3d 161, 805 N.Y.S.2d 342

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

DecidedDecember 6, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 24 A.D.3d 161 (In re Elijah Y.) 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 Elijah Y., 24 A.D.3d 161, 805 N.Y.S.2d 342 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Arlene D. Goldberg, J.), entered on or about June 9, 2004, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination (Sheldon M. Rand, J.) that he committed an act [162]*162which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of sexual abuse in the first degree, and placed him with the Office of Children and Family Services for a period of 18 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s finding was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). There is no basis for disturbing the court’s determinations concerning credibility and identification (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]). The court had a rational basis upon which to conclude that the lack of evidence of injury cast doubt on the sodomy allegation, but did not cast any doubt on the sexual abuse allegation. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Marlow, Williams, Sweeny and Catterson, 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 (Arlene D. Goldberg, J.), entered on or about June 9, 2004, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination (Sheldon M. Rand, J.) that he committed an act [162]*162which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of sexual abuse in the first degree, and placed him with the Office of Children and Family Services for a period of 18 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s finding was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). There is no basis for disturbing the court’s determinations concerning credibility and identification (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]). The court had a rational basis upon which to conclude that the lack of evidence of injury cast doubt on the sodomy allegation, but did not cast any doubt on the sexual abuse allegation. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Marlow, Williams, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 A.D.3d 161, 805 N.Y.S.2d 342, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-elijah-y-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack