In re Lorenzo M.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Lorenzo M.

265 A.D.2d 413, 696 N.Y.S.2d 844

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

DecidedOctober 12, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 265 A.D.2d 413 (In re Lorenzo M.) 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 Lorenzo M., 265 A.D.2d 413, 696 N.Y.S.2d 844 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

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 (Hepner, J.), dated October 28, 1997, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court, also dated October 28, 1997, made after a hearing, finding that the appellant had committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, adjudged him to be a juvenile delinquent and placed him with the Office of Children and Family Services for a period of 12 months. The appeal brings up for review the fact-finding order dated October 28, 1997.

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 establish the appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see, Matter of David H., 69 NY2d 792, 793; Matter of Antoine L., 248 AD2d 472; Family Ct Act 342.2 [2]; Matter of Clarence B., 265 AD2d 409 [decided herewith]). Additionally, “questions regarding the credibility of witnesses, as well as the weight of the evidence, are primarily matters to be resolved by the trier of fact. Its determination is accorded great deference as it had the opportunity to view the witnesses, hear their testimony, and observe their demeanor” (Matter of Severn J., 250 AD2d 682, 683; see, Matter of Antoine L., supra; Matter of Erik D., 248 AD2d 383). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the findings of fact were not against the weight of the evidence (cf., CPL 470.15 [5]). Mangano, P. J., Santucci, Krausman, Florio and H. Miller, 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 (Hepner, J.), dated October 28, 1997, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court, also dated October 28, 1997, made after a hearing, finding that the appellant had committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, adjudged him to be a juvenile delinquent and placed him with the Office of Children and Family Services for a period of 12 months. The appeal brings up for review the fact-finding order dated October 28, 1997.

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 establish the appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see, Matter of David H., 69 NY2d 792, 793; Matter of Antoine L., 248 AD2d 472; Family Ct Act 342.2 [2]; Matter of Clarence B., 265 AD2d 409 [decided herewith]). Additionally, “questions regarding the credibility of witnesses, as well as the weight of the evidence, are primarily matters to be resolved by the trier of fact. Its determination is accorded great deference as it had the opportunity to view the witnesses, hear their testimony, and observe their demeanor” (Matter of Severn J., 250 AD2d 682, 683; see, Matter of Antoine L., supra; Matter of Erik D., 248 AD2d 383). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the findings of fact were not against the weight of the evidence (cf., CPL 470.15 [5]). Mangano, P. J., Santucci, Krausman, Florio and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

265 A.D.2d 413, 696 N.Y.S.2d 844, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-lorenzo-m-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack