In re Joe M.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Joe M.

18 A.D.3d 238, 793 N.Y.S.2d 766, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4977

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

DecidedMay 5, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 18 A.D.3d 238 (In re Joe M.) 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 Joe M., 18 A.D.3d 238, 793 N.Y.S.2d 766, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4977 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Alma Cordova, J.), entered on or about February 2, 2004, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that he committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of assault in the third degree and 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 and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). Issues of identification and credibility, including the weight to be given to any inconsistencies in testimony, were properly considered by the court and there is no basis for disturbing its determinations.

We have considered and rejected appellant’s remaining claims. Concur — Andrias, J.E, Marlow, Sullivan, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.

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

— Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Alma Cordova, J.), entered on or about February 2, 2004, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that he committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of assault in the third degree and 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 and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). Issues of identification and credibility, including the weight to be given to any inconsistencies in testimony, were properly considered by the court and there is no basis for disturbing its determinations.

We have considered and rejected appellant’s remaining claims. Concur — Andrias, J.E, Marlow, Sullivan, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 A.D.3d 238, 793 N.Y.S.2d 766, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4977, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-joe-m-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack