In re Richard G.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Richard G.

95 A.D.3d 455, 942 N.Y.S.2d 868

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

DecidedMay 3, 2012

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 95 A.D.3d 455 (In re Richard 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 Richard G., 95 A.D.3d 455, 942 N.Y.S.2d 868 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Sidney Gribetz, J.), entered on or about April 7, 2011, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent upon a fact-finding determination that he committed acts that, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of robbery in the second degree and grand larceny in the fourth degree, and placed him on probation for a period of 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s finding was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. Appellant’s conduct before, during, and after the robbery, including his demeanor and his positioning in relation to the victim and the other participants, was inconsistent with that of a mere by[456]*456stander; instead, this pattern of conduct established appellant’s accessorial liability (see Matter of Justice G., 22 AD3d 368 [2005]). Concur — Saxe, J.P., Sweeny, Moskowitz, Freedman and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Sidney Gribetz, J.), entered on or about April 7, 2011, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent upon a fact-finding determination that he committed acts that, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of robbery in the second degree and grand larceny in the fourth degree, and placed him on probation for a period of 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s finding was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. Appellant’s conduct before, during, and after the robbery, including his demeanor and his positioning in relation to the victim and the other participants, was inconsistent with that of a mere by[456]*456stander; instead, this pattern of conduct established appellant’s accessorial liability (see Matter of Justice G., 22 AD3d 368 [2005]). Concur — Saxe, J.P., Sweeny, Moskowitz, Freedman and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

95 A.D.3d 455, 942 N.Y.S.2d 868, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-richard-g-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack