In re Mark W.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Mark W.

22 A.D.3d 257, 801 N.Y.S.2d 529

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 6, 2005·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Harold J. Lynch, J.), entered on or about June 29, 2004, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that he had committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of robbery in the third degree, and placed him in the custody of 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 (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). There is no basis for disturbing the court’s determinations concerning credibility. The element of force was established by testimony that appellant expressly threatened violence if the victim failed to surrender his property. Furthermore, appellant’s act of searching the victim’s person carried an implied threat of force under the circumstances. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Sweeny, Catterson and Malone, JJ.

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

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Harold J. Lynch, J.), entered on or about June 29, 2004, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that he had committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of robbery in the third degree, and placed him in the custody of 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 (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). There is no basis for disturbing the court’s determinations concerning credibility. The element of force was established by testimony that appellant expressly threatened violence if the victim failed to surrender his property. Furthermore, appellant’s act of searching the victim’s person carried an implied threat of force under the circumstances. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Sweeny, Catterson and Malone, JJ.

In re Mark W., 22 A.D.3d 257, 801 N.Y.S.2d 529 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

22 A.D.3d 257 (In re Mark W.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related