In re Rascarmi G.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Rascarmi G.

55 A.D.3d 329, 864 N.Y.S.2d 309

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

DecidedOctober 7, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 55 A.D.3d 329 (In re Rascarmi G.) 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 Rascarmi G., 55 A.D.3d 329, 864 N.Y.S.2d 309 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Juan M. Merchan, J.), entered on or about December 4, 2007, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that he committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of assault and menacing in the third degrees, and placed him on probation for a period of 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s finding, which rejected appellant’s justification defense 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]). The victim’s testimony was corroborated by that of a disinterested eyewitness, and appellant’s [330]*330own testimony failed to support his claim of justification. Concur—Lippman, P.J., Gonzalez, Sweeny, Catterson and DeGrasse, JJ.

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

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Juan M. Merchan, J.), entered on or about December 4, 2007, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that he committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of assault and menacing in the third degrees, and placed him on probation for a period of 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s finding, which rejected appellant’s justification defense 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]). The victim’s testimony was corroborated by that of a disinterested eyewitness, and appellant’s [330]*330own testimony failed to support his claim of justification. Concur—Lippman, P.J., Gonzalez, Sweeny, Catterson and DeGrasse, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 A.D.3d 329, 864 N.Y.S.2d 309, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-rascarmi-g-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack