In re Justice T.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Justice T.

114 A.D.3d 605, 980 N.Y.S.2d 762

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

DecidedFebruary 27, 2014

StatusPublished

This text of 114 A.D.3d 605 (In re Justice T.) 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 Justice T., 114 A.D.3d 605, 980 N.Y.S.2d 762 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Sidney Gribetz, J.), entered on or about February 4, 2013, 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 arson in the third degree and reckless endangerment in the second 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 credibility determinations, including its conclusion that at the time appellant placed a match in the opening of a car’s gas tank, the match was lit. Concur — Tom, J.E, Friedman, Saxe, Richter and Clark, 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 February 4, 2013, 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 arson in the third degree and reckless endangerment in the second 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 credibility determinations, including its conclusion that at the time appellant placed a match in the opening of a car’s gas tank, the match was lit. Concur — Tom, J.E, Friedman, Saxe, Richter and Clark, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

114 A.D.3d 605, 980 N.Y.S.2d 762, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-justice-t-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack