In re Quincey D.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Quincey D.

6 A.D.3d 311, 775 N.Y.S.2d 132, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4764

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

DecidedApril 22, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 6 A.D.3d 311 (In re Quincey D.) 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 Quincey D., 6 A.D.3d 311, 775 N.Y.S.2d 132, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4764 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Harold J. Lynch, J.), entered March 5, 2003, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that he committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would con[312]*312stitute the crime of robbery in the second degree, and imposed a conditional discharge 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 (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). There is no basis for disturbing the court’s determinations concerning identification and credibility. Appellant’s accessorial liability could be readily inferred from evidence that he was part of a large group that approached the victim in an aggressive manner and positioned themselves so as to block the victim’s path while one of the participants took his property (see e.g. Matter of Marc H., 284 AD2d 211 [2001]). Concur—Andrias, J.P., Williams, Friedman, Marlow and Gonzalez, 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 March 5, 2003, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that he committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would con[312]*312stitute the crime of robbery in the second degree, and imposed a conditional discharge 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 (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). There is no basis for disturbing the court’s determinations concerning identification and credibility. Appellant’s accessorial liability could be readily inferred from evidence that he was part of a large group that approached the victim in an aggressive manner and positioned themselves so as to block the victim’s path while one of the participants took his property (see e.g. Matter of Marc H., 284 AD2d 211 [2001]). Concur—Andrias, J.P., Williams, Friedman, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 A.D.3d 311, 775 N.Y.S.2d 132, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4764, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-quincey-d-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack