In re Kiheem T.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Kiheem T.

229 A.D.2d 545, 644 N.Y.S.2d 1007, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7891

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

DecidedJuly 22, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 229 A.D.2d 545 (In re Kiheem T.) 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 Kiheem T., 229 A.D.2d 545, 644 N.Y.S.2d 1007, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7891 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, the appeal is from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Esquirol, J.), dated March 7,1995, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court dated February 15, [546]*5461995, made after a hearing, finding that the appellant had committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crime of robbery in the second degree, adjudged him to be a juvenile delinquent and placed him on probation for a period of twelve months. The appeal brings up for review the fact-finding order dated February 15, 1995.

Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the presentment agency (cf., People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to support the determination made in the fact-finding order. Moreover, resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence, are primarily questions to be determined by the trier of facts, which saw and heard the witnesses (cf., People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94). Its determination should lie accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (cf., People v Garafolo, 44 AD2d 86, 88; see also, Matter of Joseph J., 205 AD2d 776; Matter of Stafford B., 187 AD2d 649). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the finding of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (cf., CPL 470.15 [5]). Bracken, J. P., Miller, Joy, Hart and Krausman, JJ., concur.

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

—In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, the appeal is from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Esquirol, J.), dated March 7,1995, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court dated February 15, [546]*5461995, made after a hearing, finding that the appellant had committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crime of robbery in the second degree, adjudged him to be a juvenile delinquent and placed him on probation for a period of twelve months. The appeal brings up for review the fact-finding order dated February 15, 1995.

Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the presentment agency (cf., People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to support the determination made in the fact-finding order. Moreover, resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence, are primarily questions to be determined by the trier of facts, which saw and heard the witnesses (cf., People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94). Its determination should lie accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (cf., People v Garafolo, 44 AD2d 86, 88; see also, Matter of Joseph J., 205 AD2d 776; Matter of Stafford B., 187 AD2d 649). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the finding of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (cf., CPL 470.15 [5]). Bracken, J. P., Miller, Joy, Hart and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

229 A.D.2d 545, 644 N.Y.S.2d 1007, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7891, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-kiheem-t-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack