In re Nathaniel P.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Nathaniel P.

21 A.D.3d 823, 800 N.Y.S.2d 843

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

DecidedSeptember 22, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 21 A.D.3d 823 (In re Nathaniel P.) 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 Nathaniel P., 21 A.D.3d 823, 800 N.Y.S.2d 843 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Harold J. Lynch, J.), entered on or about July 6, 2004, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that he committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of robbery in the third degree, and placed him on probation for a period of one year, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s finding was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis for disturbing the court’s credibility determinations, including its evaluation of conflicting testimony (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]). The credible evidence established that appellant used force in stealing the victim’s money. Concur—Sullivan, J.P., Ellerin, Nardelli and Sweeny, 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 July 6, 2004, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that he committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of robbery in the third degree, and placed him on probation for a period of one year, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s finding was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis for disturbing the court’s credibility determinations, including its evaluation of conflicting testimony (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]). The credible evidence established that appellant used force in stealing the victim’s money. Concur—Sullivan, J.P., Ellerin, Nardelli and Sweeny, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 A.D.3d 823, 800 N.Y.S.2d 843, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-nathaniel-p-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack