In re Katiuska N.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Katiuska N.

26 A.D.3d 243, 808 N.Y.S.2d 550

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

DecidedFebruary 16, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 26 A.D.3d 243 (In re Katiuska N.) 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 Katiuska N., 26 A.D.3d 243, 808 N.Y.S.2d 550 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Mary E. Bednar, J.), entered on or about June 6, 2005, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that appellant had committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of menacing in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, and unlawful possession of weapons by a person under 16, and placed her 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: There is no basis for disturbing the court’s determinations concerning cred[244]*244ibility (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]). Concur— Tom, J.P., Friedman, Gonzalez, Sweeny and McGuire, 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 June 6, 2005, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that appellant had committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of menacing in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, and unlawful possession of weapons by a person under 16, and placed her 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: There is no basis for disturbing the court’s determinations concerning cred[244]*244ibility (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]). Concur— Tom, J.P., Friedman, Gonzalez, Sweeny and McGuire, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 A.D.3d 243, 808 N.Y.S.2d 550, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-katiuska-n-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack