In re John C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re John C.

284 A.D.2d 395, 726 N.Y.S.2d 273, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6118

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

DecidedJune 11, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 284 A.D.2d 395 (In re John 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 John C., 284 A.D.2d 395, 726 N.Y.S.2d 273, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6118 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

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, Queens County (Friedman, J.), dated August 11, 1999, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court, dated November 4, 1998, made after a hearing, finding that the appellant had committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of robbery in the third degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, and aggravated harassment in the second degree (two counts), adjudged him to be a juvenile delinquent and placed him on probation for a period of two years. The appeal brings up for review the fact-finding order dated November 4, 1998.

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

We reject the appellant’s contention that the Family Court’s findings were against the weight of the evidence. Since the Family Court saw and heard the testimony of both witnesses first hand, its assessment of their credibility is entitled to great weight on appeal, and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the evidence (see, Matter of Tyrell A., 249 AD2d 467, 468; Matter of Nnennya P., 247 AD2d 476, 477). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the court’s findings were not against the weight of the evidence (cf., CPL 470.15 [5]). O’Brien, J. P., Altman, Luciano and Adams, 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, Queens County (Friedman, J.), dated August 11, 1999, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court, dated November 4, 1998, made after a hearing, finding that the appellant had committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of robbery in the third degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, and aggravated harassment in the second degree (two counts), adjudged him to be a juvenile delinquent and placed him on probation for a period of two years. The appeal brings up for review the fact-finding order dated November 4, 1998.

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

We reject the appellant’s contention that the Family Court’s findings were against the weight of the evidence. Since the Family Court saw and heard the testimony of both witnesses first hand, its assessment of their credibility is entitled to great weight on appeal, and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the evidence (see, Matter of Tyrell A., 249 AD2d 467, 468; Matter of Nnennya P., 247 AD2d 476, 477). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the court’s findings were not against the weight of the evidence (cf., CPL 470.15 [5]). O’Brien, J. P., Altman, Luciano and Adams, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

284 A.D.2d 395, 726 N.Y.S.2d 273, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6118, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-john-c-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack