In re Jaekas N.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Jaekas N.

102 A.D.3d 405, 955 N.Y.S.2d 879

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

DecidedJanuary 3, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 102 A.D.3d 405 (In re Jaekas N.) 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 Jaekas N., 102 A.D.3d 405, 955 N.Y.S.2d 879 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Allen G. Alpert, J.), entered on or about May 8, 2012, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent upon a fact-finding determination that he committed acts that, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of sexual misconduct and sexual abuse in the second degree, and placed him on enhanced supervision probation for a period of 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s finding was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the court’s credibility determinations, including its assessment of the victim’s delay in reporting the offenses. Concur—Gonzalez, P.J., Friedman, Saxe, Richter and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

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

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Allen G. Alpert, J.), entered on or about May 8, 2012, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent upon a fact-finding determination that he committed acts that, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of sexual misconduct and sexual abuse in the second degree, and placed him on enhanced supervision probation for a period of 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s finding was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the court’s credibility determinations, including its assessment of the victim’s delay in reporting the offenses. Concur—Gonzalez, P.J., Friedman, Saxe, Richter and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

102 A.D.3d 405, 955 N.Y.S.2d 879, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-jaekas-n-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack