In re Jairo L.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Jairo L.

35 A.D.3d 171, 824 N.Y.S.2d 566

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 5, 2006·Published

Opinion

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Mary Bednar, J.), entered on or about December 6, 2005, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that he committed an act, which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of menacing in the third degree, and placed him on probation for a period of 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s finding was based on legally sufficient evidence [172] and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]; Matter of William A., 219 AD2d 494 [1995]). There is no basis for disturbing the court’s determinations regarding issues of credibility and identification.

We similarly reject appellant’s challenge to the petition’s sufficiency (see Matter of Jahron S., 79 NY2d 632, 637-638 [1992]; Matter of Jonathan M., 4 AD3d 154 [2004]). Concur—Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Nardelli, Sweeny and McGuire, JJ.

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

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Mary Bednar, J.), entered on or about December 6, 2005, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that he committed an act, which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of menacing in the third degree, and placed him on probation for a period of 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s finding was based on legally sufficient evidence [172] and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]; Matter of William A., 219 AD2d 494 [1995]). There is no basis for disturbing the court’s determinations regarding issues of credibility and identification.

We similarly reject appellant’s challenge to the petition’s sufficiency (see Matter of Jahron S., 79 NY2d 632, 637-638 [1992]; Matter of Jonathan M., 4 AD3d 154 [2004]). Concur—Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Nardelli, Sweeny and McGuire, JJ.

In re Jairo L., 35 A.D.3d 171, 824 N.Y.S.2d 566 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

35 A.D.3d 171 (In re Jairo L.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related