In re Kayvon B.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Kayvon B.

85 A.D.3d 452, 924 N.Y.S.2d 272

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

DecidedJune 7, 2011

StatusPublished

This text of 85 A.D.3d 452 (In re Kayvon B.) 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 Kayvon B., 85 A.D.3d 452, 924 N.Y.S.2d 272 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Mary E. Bednar, J.), entered on or about August 26, 2010, 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 assault in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth 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. The observing officer’s testimony disproved appellant’s justification defense beyond a reasonable doubt, notwithstanding the fact that the victim did not testify.

The court properly exercised its discretion in declining to draw an adverse inference from the victim’s absence. The presentment agency sufficiently demonstrated that the victim was unavailable (see generally People v Gonzalez, 68 NY2d 424, 427-428 [1986]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Moskowitz, Renwick and Román, 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 August 26, 2010, 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 assault in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth 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. The observing officer’s testimony disproved appellant’s justification defense beyond a reasonable doubt, notwithstanding the fact that the victim did not testify.

The court properly exercised its discretion in declining to draw an adverse inference from the victim’s absence. The presentment agency sufficiently demonstrated that the victim was unavailable (see generally People v Gonzalez, 68 NY2d 424, 427-428 [1986]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Moskowitz, Renwick and Román, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

85 A.D.3d 452, 924 N.Y.S.2d 272, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-kayvon-b-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack