In re Jennifer A.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Jennifer A.

73 A.D.3d 566, 900 N.Y.S.2d 643

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

DecidedMay 18, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 73 A.D.3d 566 (In re Jennifer 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 Jennifer A., 73 A.D.3d 566, 900 N.Y.S.2d 643 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Sidney Gribetz, J.), entered on or about August 4, 2009, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent upon a fact-finding determination that she committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of robbery in the third degree, assault in the third degree and menacing in the third degree, and placed her on probation for a period of 18 months and ordered her to pay $500 in restitution, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s finding as to robbery was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence [567]*567(see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). The evidence, including appellant’s postarrest statement, supported the inference that during the course of an altercation with the victim, appellant formed the intent to deprive the victim of property by force.

The court’s calculation of the amount of restitution was supported by a victim impact statement specifying the approximate replacement cost of the jewelry (see Matter of Joshua C., 65 AD3d 971 [2009]). Appellant did not avail herself of the court’s offer to conduct a restitution hearing. Concur—Tom, J.P., McGuire, Moskowitz, Acosta and Freedman, JJ.

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

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Sidney Gribetz, J.), entered on or about August 4, 2009, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent upon a fact-finding determination that she committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of robbery in the third degree, assault in the third degree and menacing in the third degree, and placed her on probation for a period of 18 months and ordered her to pay $500 in restitution, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s finding as to robbery was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence [567]*567(see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). The evidence, including appellant’s postarrest statement, supported the inference that during the course of an altercation with the victim, appellant formed the intent to deprive the victim of property by force.

The court’s calculation of the amount of restitution was supported by a victim impact statement specifying the approximate replacement cost of the jewelry (see Matter of Joshua C., 65 AD3d 971 [2009]). Appellant did not avail herself of the court’s offer to conduct a restitution hearing. Concur—Tom, J.P., McGuire, Moskowitz, Acosta and Freedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

73 A.D.3d 566, 900 N.Y.S.2d 643, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-jennifer-a-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack