In re Lucas W.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Lucas W.

34 A.D.3d 1349, 823 N.Y.S.2d 713

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

DecidedNovember 17, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 34 A.D.3d 1349 (In re Lucas W.) 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 Lucas W., 34 A.D.3d 1349, 823 N.Y.S.2d 713 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Monroe County (Joan S. Kohout, J.), [1350]*1350entered October 18, 2005 in a proceeding pursuant to Family-Court Act article 3. The order, among other things, adjudged that respondent is a juvenile delinquent.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Respondent appeals from an order adjudicating him to be a juvenile delinquent based on a finding that he committed acts that, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of petit larceny (Penal Law § 155.25) and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree (§ 165.40). Contrary to respondent’s contention, the evidence presented at the hearing, when viewed in the fight most favorable to the presentment agency (see Matter of David H., 69 NY2d 792, 793 [1987]; Matter of Bryan C., 23 AD3d 652 [2005]), is legally sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that respondent committed the acts alleged in the petition (see Family Ct Act § 342.2 [2]; Matter of Travis D., 1 AD3d 968, 969 [2003]; Matter of Zachary K., 299 AD2d 755, 756-757 [2002]; Matter of Katrina W., 277 AD2d 949 [2000]). Moreover, Family Court’s findings are not against the weight of the evidence (see Travis D., 1 AD3d at 969; Katrina W., 277 AD2d at 949). Present—Scudder, J.E, Kehoe, Martoche and Green, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Monroe County (Joan S. Kohout, J.), [1350]*1350entered October 18, 2005 in a proceeding pursuant to Family-Court Act article 3. The order, among other things, adjudged that respondent is a juvenile delinquent.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Respondent appeals from an order adjudicating him to be a juvenile delinquent based on a finding that he committed acts that, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of petit larceny (Penal Law § 155.25) and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree (§ 165.40). Contrary to respondent’s contention, the evidence presented at the hearing, when viewed in the fight most favorable to the presentment agency (see Matter of David H., 69 NY2d 792, 793 [1987]; Matter of Bryan C., 23 AD3d 652 [2005]), is legally sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that respondent committed the acts alleged in the petition (see Family Ct Act § 342.2 [2]; Matter of Travis D., 1 AD3d 968, 969 [2003]; Matter of Zachary K., 299 AD2d 755, 756-757 [2002]; Matter of Katrina W., 277 AD2d 949 [2000]). Moreover, Family Court’s findings are not against the weight of the evidence (see Travis D., 1 AD3d at 969; Katrina W., 277 AD2d at 949). Present—Scudder, J.E, Kehoe, Martoche and Green, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 A.D.3d 1349, 823 N.Y.S.2d 713, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-lucas-w-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack