In re Farhana A.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Farhana A.

248 A.D.2d 463, 668 N.Y.S.2d 929, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2322

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

DecidedMarch 9, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 248 A.D.2d 463 (In re Farhana A.) 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 Farhana A., 248 A.D.2d 463, 668 N.Y.S.2d 929, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2322 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, the appeal is from (1) a fact-finding order of the Family Court, Queens County (Berman, J.), dated March 13, 1997, made after a hearing, which found that the appellant committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the [464]*464crimes of robbery in the second degree (two counts), robbery in the third degree, grand larceny in the fourth degree, petit larceny, and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, and (2) an order of disposition of the same court dated April 17, 1997, which, upon the fact-finding order, adjudicated the respondent to be a juvenile delinquent and placed her on probation for two years.

Ordered that the appeal from the fact-finding order is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as that order is not appealable as of right (see, Family Ct Act § 365.1 [1]); and it is further,

Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Presentment Agency (cf., People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to support the determination made in the fact-finding order. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the Family Court’s findings of fact were not against the weight of the evidence (cf., CPL 470.15 [5]).

Mangano, P. J., Miller, Pizzuto and Krausman, JJ., concur.

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

—In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, the appeal is from (1) a fact-finding order of the Family Court, Queens County (Berman, J.), dated March 13, 1997, made after a hearing, which found that the appellant committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the [464]*464crimes of robbery in the second degree (two counts), robbery in the third degree, grand larceny in the fourth degree, petit larceny, and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, and (2) an order of disposition of the same court dated April 17, 1997, which, upon the fact-finding order, adjudicated the respondent to be a juvenile delinquent and placed her on probation for two years.

Ordered that the appeal from the fact-finding order is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as that order is not appealable as of right (see, Family Ct Act § 365.1 [1]); and it is further,

Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Presentment Agency (cf., People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to support the determination made in the fact-finding order. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the Family Court’s findings of fact were not against the weight of the evidence (cf., CPL 470.15 [5]).

Mangano, P. J., Miller, Pizzuto and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 A.D.2d 463, 668 N.Y.S.2d 929, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2322, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-farhana-a-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack