In re James D.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re James D.

6 A.D.3d 361, 775 N.Y.S.2d 523, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5046

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

DecidedApril 29, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 6 A.D.3d 361 (In re James D.) 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 D., 6 A.D.3d 361, 775 N.Y.S.2d 523, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5046 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Harold J. Lynch, J.), entered on or about February 25, 2003, 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 petit larceny, and placed him on probation for 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s finding was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). Issues of identification and credibility were properly considered by the court and we perceive no basis to disturb its determinations. The victim had an ample opportunity to observe appellant and provided reliable identification testimony. Concur—Tom, J.P., Ellerin, Lerner and Marlow, JJ.

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

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Harold J. Lynch, J.), entered on or about February 25, 2003, 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 petit larceny, and placed him on probation for 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s finding was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). Issues of identification and credibility were properly considered by the court and we perceive no basis to disturb its determinations. The victim had an ample opportunity to observe appellant and provided reliable identification testimony. Concur—Tom, J.P., Ellerin, Lerner and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 A.D.3d 361, 775 N.Y.S.2d 523, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5046, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-james-d-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack