In re Joseph M.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Joseph M.

83 A.D.3d 425, 920 N.Y.S.2d 333

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

DecidedApril 5, 2011

StatusPublished

This text of 83 A.D.3d 425 (In re Joseph 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 Joseph M., 83 A.D.3d 425, 920 N.Y.S.2d 333 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Mary E. Bednar, J.), entered on or about March 9, 2010, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent upon a fact-finding determination that he committed acts that, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of attempted assault in the second and third degrees and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth 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 Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the court’s determinations concerning identification and credibility. Although the victim did not identify appellant, he was identified by a bystander who had an ample opportunity to observe the incident. Furthermore, appellant was arrested immediately after the attack, while still in the company of other participants. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Renwick, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Mary E. Bednar, J.), entered on or about March 9, 2010, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent upon a fact-finding determination that he committed acts that, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of attempted assault in the second and third degrees and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth 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 Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the court’s determinations concerning identification and credibility. Although the victim did not identify appellant, he was identified by a bystander who had an ample opportunity to observe the incident. Furthermore, appellant was arrested immediately after the attack, while still in the company of other participants. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Renwick, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

83 A.D.3d 425, 920 N.Y.S.2d 333, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-joseph-m-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack