In re James A.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re James A.

205 A.D.2d 621, 613 N.Y.S.2d 255

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

DecidedJune 13, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 205 A.D.2d 621 (In re James 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 James A., 205 A.D.2d 621, 613 N.Y.S.2d 255 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, the appeal is from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Westchester County (Bellantoni, J.), entered February 23, 1993, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court, entered December 15, 1992, made upon an admission, finding that the appellant had committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of criminal mischief in the fourth degree and conspiracy in the fifth degree, inter alia, adjudged him to be a juvenile delinquent, placed him on probation for one year, and ordered him to pay restitution of $1,500. The appeal brings up for review the fact-finding order entered December 15, 1992.

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

The appellant contends that the evidence adduced at the dispositional hearing was insufficient to support that portion of the order which required him to pay restitution in the amount of $1,500. The determination as to the "fair and reasonable cost to replace the property or repair the damage” caused by the appellant (Family Ct Act § 353.6 [1] [a]) presented a disputed factual issue, and, as the trier of fact, the [622]*622Family Court’s determination as to the credibility of the witnesses is entitled to great weight (see, e.g., Matter of Bernard J., 171 AD2d 794; Matter of Jamal V., 159 AD2d 507). We find that the evidence provided by the victim with respect to the property damage and lost inventory in his store amply supported the court’s determination, and we cannot say that the decision to impose the maximum amount of restitution was an improvident exercise of discretion (see, Matter of Kerry E., 161 AD2d 843; cf., Matter of Richard GG., 187 AD2d 846; Matter of David N., 97 AD2d 980).

We find the appellant’s remaining contention to be without merit, as the record clearly indicates that the parties limited the dispositional hearing to the issue of restitution. O’Brien, J. P., Santucci, Altman 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 an order of disposition of the Family Court, Westchester County (Bellantoni, J.), entered February 23, 1993, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court, entered December 15, 1992, made upon an admission, finding that the appellant had committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of criminal mischief in the fourth degree and conspiracy in the fifth degree, inter alia, adjudged him to be a juvenile delinquent, placed him on probation for one year, and ordered him to pay restitution of $1,500. The appeal brings up for review the fact-finding order entered December 15, 1992.

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

The appellant contends that the evidence adduced at the dispositional hearing was insufficient to support that portion of the order which required him to pay restitution in the amount of $1,500. The determination as to the "fair and reasonable cost to replace the property or repair the damage” caused by the appellant (Family Ct Act § 353.6 [1] [a]) presented a disputed factual issue, and, as the trier of fact, the [622]*622Family Court’s determination as to the credibility of the witnesses is entitled to great weight (see, e.g., Matter of Bernard J., 171 AD2d 794; Matter of Jamal V., 159 AD2d 507). We find that the evidence provided by the victim with respect to the property damage and lost inventory in his store amply supported the court’s determination, and we cannot say that the decision to impose the maximum amount of restitution was an improvident exercise of discretion (see, Matter of Kerry E., 161 AD2d 843; cf., Matter of Richard GG., 187 AD2d 846; Matter of David N., 97 AD2d 980).

We find the appellant’s remaining contention to be without merit, as the record clearly indicates that the parties limited the dispositional hearing to the issue of restitution. O’Brien, J. P., Santucci, Altman and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

205 A.D.2d 621, 613 N.Y.S.2d 255, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-james-a-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack