In re Kathryn K.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Kathryn K.

55 A.D.3d 366, 866 N.Y.S.2d 103

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

DecidedOctober 14, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 55 A.D.3d 366 (In re Kathryn 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 Kathryn K., 55 A.D.3d 366, 866 N.Y.S.2d 103 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Clark V Richardson, J.), entered on or about July 3, 2007, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon fact-finding determination that she had committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of false personation, and placed her with the Office of Children and Family Services 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 credibility, including its rejection of appellant’s explanation for her conduct. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P, Friedman, Nardelli, Williams and Freedman, JJ.

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

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Clark V Richardson, J.), entered on or about July 3, 2007, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon fact-finding determination that she had committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of false personation, and placed her with the Office of Children and Family Services 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 credibility, including its rejection of appellant’s explanation for her conduct. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P, Friedman, Nardelli, Williams and Freedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 A.D.3d 366, 866 N.Y.S.2d 103, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-kathryn-k-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack