In re Nia L.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Nia L.

38 A.D.3d 472, 831 N.Y.S.2d 324

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

DecidedMarch 29, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 38 A.D.3d 472 (In re Nia L.) 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 Nia L., 38 A.D.3d 472, 831 N.Y.S.2d 324 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Susan R Larabee, J.), entered on or about June 12, 2006, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that she had committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of attempted assault in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, and placed her on probation 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. There is no basis for disturbing the court’s determinations concerning identification and credibility (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). We have considered and rejected appellant’s remaining arguments. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Friedman, Buckley, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.

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

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Susan R Larabee, J.), entered on or about June 12, 2006, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that she had committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of attempted assault in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, and placed her on probation 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. There is no basis for disturbing the court’s determinations concerning identification and credibility (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). We have considered and rejected appellant’s remaining arguments. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Friedman, Buckley, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 A.D.3d 472, 831 N.Y.S.2d 324, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-nia-l-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack