In re Gilbert B.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Gilbert B.

280 A.D.2d 1006, 720 N.Y.S.2d 432, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1247

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

DecidedFebruary 7, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 280 A.D.2d 1006 (In re Gilbert B.) 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 Gilbert B., 280 A.D.2d 1006, 720 N.Y.S.2d 432, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1247 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Respondent appeals from an order entered in Family Court determining that he is a juvenile delinquent and placing him in the custody of the New York State Office of Children and Family Services for a period of one year. Respondent was indicted as a juvenile offender (see, Penal Law § 10.00 [18]) in connection with a fire that destroyed his family’s home and caused severe damage to the house next door. Following a bench trial, County Court found respondent not guilty of arson in the second degree (Penal Law § 150.15) and guilty of arson in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 150.05 [1]). The court granted the People’s motion to remove the matter to Family Court for disposition. Respondent contends that the evidence, which is entirely circumstantial, is legally insufficient to support the conviction. We disagree. Our review of the legal sufficiency of the evidence “involve [s] only a legal assessment of whether inferences of guilt [can] be rationally drawn from proven facts” (People v Taylor, 94 NY2d 910, 911). [1007]*1007Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we conclude that “ ‘any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt’ ” (People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621). (Appeal from Order of Erie County Family Court, Dillon, J. — Juvenile Delinquency.) Present — Wisner, J. P., Hurlbutt, Scudder, Kehoe and Burns, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Respondent appeals from an order entered in Family Court determining that he is a juvenile delinquent and placing him in the custody of the New York State Office of Children and Family Services for a period of one year. Respondent was indicted as a juvenile offender (see, Penal Law § 10.00 [18]) in connection with a fire that destroyed his family’s home and caused severe damage to the house next door. Following a bench trial, County Court found respondent not guilty of arson in the second degree (Penal Law § 150.15) and guilty of arson in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 150.05 [1]). The court granted the People’s motion to remove the matter to Family Court for disposition. Respondent contends that the evidence, which is entirely circumstantial, is legally insufficient to support the conviction. We disagree. Our review of the legal sufficiency of the evidence “involve [s] only a legal assessment of whether inferences of guilt [can] be rationally drawn from proven facts” (People v Taylor, 94 NY2d 910, 911). [1007]*1007Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we conclude that “ ‘any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt’ ” (People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621). (Appeal from Order of Erie County Family Court, Dillon, J. — Juvenile Delinquency.) Present — Wisner, J. P., Hurlbutt, Scudder, Kehoe and Burns, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

280 A.D.2d 1006, 720 N.Y.S.2d 432, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1247, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-gilbert-b-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack