In re Ramel B.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Ramel B.

6 A.D.3d 225, 774 N.Y.S.2d 325, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4066

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

DecidedApril 13, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 6 A.D.3d 225 (In re Ramel 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 Ramel B., 6 A.D.3d 225, 774 N.Y.S.2d 325, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4066 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of disposition, [226]*226Family Court, Bronx County (Harold J. Lynch, J.), entered on or about November 25, 2002, 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 resisting arrest, and imposed a conditional discharge for a period of 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The petition and supporting deposition alleged facts, which, if true, establish that appellant resisted an arrest that was authorized by law (see Penal Law § 205.30; cf. People v Alejandro, 70 NY2d 133 [1987]).

The court’s finding 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, including its weighing of conflicting testimony. We note that the officer’s testimony was corroborated by that of a bus dispatcher that appellant was behaving in a disorderly fashion and had resisted arrest.

The court properly concluded that a conditional discharge was an appropriate disposition and declined to dismiss the petition. Concur—Tom, J.P., Saxe, Ellerin, Lerner and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Order of disposition, [226]*226Family Court, Bronx County (Harold J. Lynch, J.), entered on or about November 25, 2002, 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 resisting arrest, and imposed a conditional discharge for a period of 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The petition and supporting deposition alleged facts, which, if true, establish that appellant resisted an arrest that was authorized by law (see Penal Law § 205.30; cf. People v Alejandro, 70 NY2d 133 [1987]).

The court’s finding 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, including its weighing of conflicting testimony. We note that the officer’s testimony was corroborated by that of a bus dispatcher that appellant was behaving in a disorderly fashion and had resisted arrest.

The court properly concluded that a conditional discharge was an appropriate disposition and declined to dismiss the petition. Concur—Tom, J.P., Saxe, Ellerin, Lerner and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 A.D.3d 225, 774 N.Y.S.2d 325, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4066, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-ramel-b-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack