In re Justin V.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Justin V.

19 A.D.3d 157, 795 N.Y.S.2d 887, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5990

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

DecidedJune 7, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 19 A.D.3d 157 (In re Justin V.) 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 Justin V., 19 A.D.3d 157, 795 N.Y.S.2d 887, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5990 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Alma Cordova, J.), entered on or about May 27, 2004, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that he committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of criminal mischief in the second degree, and placed him on probation for a period of one year, 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]). The evidence warranted the inference that appellant damaged the car in question, as well as the inference that he intended the natural consequence of his acts (see Matter of Joshua E, 309 AD2d 1012 [2003]). Concur— Mazzarelli, J.E, Andrias, Friedman, Gonzalez and Catterson, 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 May 27, 2004, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that he committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of criminal mischief in the second degree, and placed him on probation for a period of one year, 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]). The evidence warranted the inference that appellant damaged the car in question, as well as the inference that he intended the natural consequence of his acts (see Matter of Joshua E, 309 AD2d 1012 [2003]). Concur— Mazzarelli, J.E, Andrias, Friedman, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.D.3d 157, 795 N.Y.S.2d 887, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5990, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-justin-v-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack