In re Quincy B.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Quincy B.

82 A.D.3d 416, 917 N.Y.2d 629

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

DecidedMarch 1, 2011

StatusPublished

This text of 82 A.D.3d 416 (In re Quincy B.) 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 Quincy B., 82 A.D.3d 416, 917 N.Y.2d 629 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

[417]*417The court’s finding was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the court’s determinations concerning identification and credibility. The victim testified that appellant personally seized his property, rather than appellant being merely present at the scene. The victim also testified that he recognized appellant as a student at his school, and that he knew what grade appellant was in. The court properly considered this in crediting the victim’s identification of appellant as one of the perpetrators of the theft of the iPod. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Friedman, Catterson, Manzanet-Daniels and Román, JJ.

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

[417]*417The court’s finding was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the court’s determinations concerning identification and credibility. The victim testified that appellant personally seized his property, rather than appellant being merely present at the scene. The victim also testified that he recognized appellant as a student at his school, and that he knew what grade appellant was in. The court properly considered this in crediting the victim’s identification of appellant as one of the perpetrators of the theft of the iPod. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Friedman, Catterson, Manzanet-Daniels and Román, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 A.D.3d 416, 917 N.Y.2d 629, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-quincy-b-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack