In re Onyca M.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Onyca M.

5 A.D.3d 315, 773 N.Y.S.2d 548, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3530

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

DecidedMarch 30, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 5 A.D.3d 315 (In re Onyca M.) 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 Onyca M., 5 A.D.3d 315, 773 N.Y.S.2d 548, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3530 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Sheldon Rand, J.), entered on or about March 13, 2003, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that appellant committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of attempted assault in the third degree, and placed her on probation for a period of two years, 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 victim explicitly testified that her identification of appellant was based on her personal observations. We have considered and rejected appellant’s remaining arguments. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Mazzarelli, Sullivan, Friedman and Gonzalez, 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 (Sheldon Rand, J.), entered on or about March 13, 2003, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that appellant committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of attempted assault in the third degree, and placed her on probation for a period of two years, 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 victim explicitly testified that her identification of appellant was based on her personal observations. We have considered and rejected appellant’s remaining arguments. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Mazzarelli, Sullivan, Friedman and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 A.D.3d 315, 773 N.Y.S.2d 548, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3530, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-onyca-m-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack