In re Marco N.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Marco N.

82 A.D.3d 984, 918 N.Y.2d 782

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

DecidedMarch 15, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 82 A.D.3d 984 (In re Marco N.) 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 Marco N., 82 A.D.3d 984, 918 N.Y.2d 782 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the presentment agency (see Matter of David H., 69 NY2d 792, 793 [1987]; Matter of Ashley P., 74 AD3d 1075 [2010]; Matter of Joel C., 70 AD3d 936, 937 [2010]; cf People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it is was legally sufficient to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the appellant committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of robbery in the second degree, grand larceny in the fourth degree, and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree based on a theory of accomplice liability (see Family Ct Act § 342.2 [2]; Penal Law § 20.00; Matter of Joseph H., 55 AD3d 608, 609 [2008]; Matter of Kenyetta F., 49 AD3d 540, 541 [2008]; Matter of Jonathan V., 43 AD3d 470, 471 [2007]; Matter of Joseph J., 205 AD2d 777, 778 [1994]). Moreover, upon our independent review of the record, we are satisfied that the fact-finding determination was not against the weight of the evidence (see Matter of Ashley P., 74 AD3d 1075, 1076 [2010]; Matter of Joel C., 70 AD3d 936, 937 [2010]; cf People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.E, Dillon, Hall and Roman, JJ., concur.

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

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the presentment agency (see Matter of David H., 69 NY2d 792, 793 [1987]; Matter of Ashley P., 74 AD3d 1075 [2010]; Matter of Joel C., 70 AD3d 936, 937 [2010]; cf People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it is was legally sufficient to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the appellant committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of robbery in the second degree, grand larceny in the fourth degree, and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree based on a theory of accomplice liability (see Family Ct Act § 342.2 [2]; Penal Law § 20.00; Matter of Joseph H., 55 AD3d 608, 609 [2008]; Matter of Kenyetta F., 49 AD3d 540, 541 [2008]; Matter of Jonathan V., 43 AD3d 470, 471 [2007]; Matter of Joseph J., 205 AD2d 777, 778 [1994]). Moreover, upon our independent review of the record, we are satisfied that the fact-finding determination was not against the weight of the evidence (see Matter of Ashley P., 74 AD3d 1075, 1076 [2010]; Matter of Joel C., 70 AD3d 936, 937 [2010]; cf People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.E, Dillon, Hall and Roman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 A.D.3d 984, 918 N.Y.2d 782, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-marco-n-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack