In re Erica Z.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Erica Z.

32 A.D.3d 764, 821 N.Y.S.2d 560

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

DecidedSeptember 26, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 32 A.D.3d 764 (In re Erica Z.) 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 Erica Z., 32 A.D.3d 764, 821 N.Y.S.2d 560 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Monica Drinane, J.), entered on or about January 5, 2005, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that she committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of criminal mischief in the third degree, placed her on probation for a period of up to 12 months and ordered that she pay restitution or perform 25 hours of community service, 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 Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). There is no basis for disturbing the court’s determinations concerning credibility. The victim’s testimony established that appellant engaged in conduct evincing an intent to damage the victim’s car, and the expert testimony established that the damage met the statutory threshold of $250 (Penal Law § 145.05 [2]). Concur — Buckley, P.J., Saxe, Williams, Sweeny 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 (Monica Drinane, J.), entered on or about January 5, 2005, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that she committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of criminal mischief in the third degree, placed her on probation for a period of up to 12 months and ordered that she pay restitution or perform 25 hours of community service, 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 Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). There is no basis for disturbing the court’s determinations concerning credibility. The victim’s testimony established that appellant engaged in conduct evincing an intent to damage the victim’s car, and the expert testimony established that the damage met the statutory threshold of $250 (Penal Law § 145.05 [2]). Concur — Buckley, P.J., Saxe, Williams, Sweeny and Malone, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 A.D.3d 764, 821 N.Y.S.2d 560, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-erica-z-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack