In re Jamel C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Jamel C.

92 A.D.3d 782, 938 N.Y.2d 456

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

DecidedFebruary 14, 2012

StatusPublished

Cited by15 cases

This text of 92 A.D.3d 782 (In re Jamel C.) 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 Jamel C., 92 A.D.3d 782, 938 N.Y.2d 456 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the presentment agency (see Matter of David H., 69 NY2d 792, 793 [1987]; cf. People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the appellant committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crime of robbery in the second degree (see Family Ct Act § 342.2 [2]). Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (cf. CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accord deference to [783]*783the factfinder’s opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see Matter of Darnell C., 66 AD3d 771 [2009]; cf. People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383 [2004], cert denied 542 US 946 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the Family Court’s fact-finding determination was not against the weight of the evidence (cf. People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]). The evidence of the appellant’s conduct before, during, and after the acts established, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he acted in concert to commit the charged acts (see Matter of Geovanny V., 82 AD3d 993, 994 [2011]; Matter of Jamal G., 293 AD2d 379, 380 [2002]).

The appellant’s remaining contention is without merit. Dillon, J.E, Florio, Chambers and Roman, JJ., concur.

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

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the presentment agency (see Matter of David H., 69 NY2d 792, 793 [1987]; cf. People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the appellant committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crime of robbery in the second degree (see Family Ct Act § 342.2 [2]). Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (cf. CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accord deference to [783]*783the factfinder’s opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see Matter of Darnell C., 66 AD3d 771 [2009]; cf. People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383 [2004], cert denied 542 US 946 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the Family Court’s fact-finding determination was not against the weight of the evidence (cf. People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]). The evidence of the appellant’s conduct before, during, and after the acts established, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he acted in concert to commit the charged acts (see Matter of Geovanny V., 82 AD3d 993, 994 [2011]; Matter of Jamal G., 293 AD2d 379, 380 [2002]).

The appellant’s remaining contention is without merit. Dillon, J.E, Florio, Chambers and Roman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 A.D.3d 782, 938 N.Y.2d 456, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-jamel-c-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack