In re Esmeralda C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Esmeralda C.

309 A.D.2d 507, 765 N.Y.S.2d 244, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10011

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 2, 2003·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Sidney Gribetz, J.), entered on or about November 21, 2001, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that she committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of robbery in the second degree, attempted gang assault in the second degree and assault in the second degree, and placed her with the Office of Children and Family Services for a period of 18 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s finding was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). There is no basis for disturbing the court’s determinations concerning credibility. The victim’s credible testimony clearly established that appellant deliber[508] ately stole the victim’s property, and also established the element of physical injury (see People v Guidice, 83 NY2d 630, 636 [1994]).

The court properly exercised its discretion in ordering placement, which was the least restrictive alternative (see Matter of Katherine W., 62 NY2d 947 [1984]). Concur — Buckley, P.J., Tom, Ellerin, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Sidney Gribetz, J.), entered on or about November 21, 2001, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that she committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of robbery in the second degree, attempted gang assault in the second degree and assault in the second degree, and placed her with the Office of Children and Family Services for a period of 18 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s finding was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). There is no basis for disturbing the court’s determinations concerning credibility. The victim’s credible testimony clearly established that appellant deliber[508] ately stole the victim’s property, and also established the element of physical injury (see People v Guidice, 83 NY2d 630, 636 [1994]).

The court properly exercised its discretion in ordering placement, which was the least restrictive alternative (see Matter of Katherine W., 62 NY2d 947 [1984]). Concur — Buckley, P.J., Tom, Ellerin, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.

In re Esmeralda C., 309 A.D.2d 507, 765 N.Y.S.2d 244, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10011 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

309 A.D.2d 507 (In re Esmeralda C.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related