In re Joseph K.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Joseph K.

82 A.D.3d 646, 920 N.Y.2d 313

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

DecidedMarch 29, 2011

StatusPublished

This text of 82 A.D.3d 646 (In re Joseph K.) 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 Joseph K., 82 A.D.3d 646, 920 N.Y.2d 313 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

The court’s finding was supported by legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the court’s credibility determinations.

The court properly exercised its discretion when it denied appellant’s request for an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal, and instead adjudicated him a juvenile delinquent and imposed a period of probation. The court adopted the least re[647]*647strictive dispositional alternative consistent with appellant’s needs and the needs of the community (see Matter of Katherine W., 62 NY2d 947 [1984]). The underlying conduct was a serious assault on an unarmed person with a weapon made of a sock weighted with a padlock. Although it was appellant’s companion who actually used the weapon, appellant’s role was significant. As the companion struck the victim, appellant held the victim from behind and punched him. In addition, appellant refused to acknowledge the seriousness of his offense. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Saxe, Renwick, DeGrasse and Richter, JJ.

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

The court’s finding was supported by legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the court’s credibility determinations.

The court properly exercised its discretion when it denied appellant’s request for an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal, and instead adjudicated him a juvenile delinquent and imposed a period of probation. The court adopted the least re[647]*647strictive dispositional alternative consistent with appellant’s needs and the needs of the community (see Matter of Katherine W., 62 NY2d 947 [1984]). The underlying conduct was a serious assault on an unarmed person with a weapon made of a sock weighted with a padlock. Although it was appellant’s companion who actually used the weapon, appellant’s role was significant. As the companion struck the victim, appellant held the victim from behind and punched him. In addition, appellant refused to acknowledge the seriousness of his offense. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Saxe, Renwick, DeGrasse and Richter, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 A.D.3d 646, 920 N.Y.2d 313, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-joseph-k-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack