In re Malcolm H.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Malcolm H.

41 A.D.3d 111, 835 N.Y.S.2d 894

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

DecidedJune 5, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 41 A.D.3d 111 (In re Malcolm H.) 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 Malcolm H., 41 A.D.3d 111, 835 N.Y.S.2d 894 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Alma Cordova, J), entered September 29, 2006, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that he had committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of robbery in the first degree (two counts), robbery in the second degree (two counts), grand larceny in the fourth degree, and menacing in the second and third degrees, and placed him with the Office of Children and Family Services for a period of 18 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s finding was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (People v Bleak[112]*112ley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). There is no basis for disturbing the court’s determinations as to identification and credibility. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Williams and McGuire, JJ.

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

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Alma Cordova, J), entered September 29, 2006, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that he had committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of robbery in the first degree (two counts), robbery in the second degree (two counts), grand larceny in the fourth degree, and menacing in the second and third degrees, and placed him with the Office of Children and Family Services for a period of 18 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s finding was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (People v Bleak[112]*112ley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). There is no basis for disturbing the court’s determinations as to identification and credibility. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Williams and McGuire, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 A.D.3d 111, 835 N.Y.S.2d 894, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-malcolm-h-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack