In re Kaseem W.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Kaseem W.

50 A.D.3d 521, 856 N.Y.S.2d 579

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

DecidedApril 24, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 50 A.D.3d 521 (In re Kaseem W.) 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 Kaseem W., 50 A.D.3d 521, 856 N.Y.S.2d 579 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Alma Cordova, J.), entered on or about June 19, 2006, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that he committed acts, which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of assault in the third degree and menacing in the third 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]). Appellant’s entire course of conduct before, during and after the assault supports the inference of accessorial liability, while contradicting his [522]*522claim that he was merely present, and that his menacing statement to the victim was only a warning not to start a fight. Concur—Tom, J.E, Mazzarelli, Williams and Sweeny, JJ.

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

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Alma Cordova, J.), entered on or about June 19, 2006, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that he committed acts, which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of assault in the third degree and menacing in the third 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]). Appellant’s entire course of conduct before, during and after the assault supports the inference of accessorial liability, while contradicting his [522]*522claim that he was merely present, and that his menacing statement to the victim was only a warning not to start a fight. Concur—Tom, J.E, Mazzarelli, Williams and Sweeny, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 A.D.3d 521, 856 N.Y.S.2d 579, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-kaseem-w-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack