In re Robert F.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Robert F.

297 A.D.2d 610, 747 N.Y.2d 362, 747 N.Y.S.2d 362, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8809

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

DecidedSeptember 26, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 297 A.D.2d 610 (In re Robert F.) 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 Robert F., 297 A.D.2d 610, 747 N.Y.2d 362, 747 N.Y.S.2d 362, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8809 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

The court properly determined that the victim was capable of testifying as a sworn witness. The victim demonstrated sufficient intelligence and capacity to be sworn. He was aware of the difference between the truth and a lie, of divine or parental punishment for lying, and of the meaning of swearing to tell the truth, and had the ability to relate personal circumstances and the purpose of his visit to the courtroom (see People v Nisoff, 36 NY2d 560, 566; People v Parks, 41 NY2d 36, 46; People v Cordero, 257 AD2d 372, 373-374, Iv denied 93 NY2d 968).

The court’s finding that appellant was guilty of the crimes charged was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. The victim testified cogently and consistently about the events at issue, and we see no reason to disturb the court’s determinations concerning credibility. Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Saxe, Ellerin, Rubin and Friedman, JJ.

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

The court properly determined that the victim was capable of testifying as a sworn witness. The victim demonstrated sufficient intelligence and capacity to be sworn. He was aware of the difference between the truth and a lie, of divine or parental punishment for lying, and of the meaning of swearing to tell the truth, and had the ability to relate personal circumstances and the purpose of his visit to the courtroom (see People v Nisoff, 36 NY2d 560, 566; People v Parks, 41 NY2d 36, 46; People v Cordero, 257 AD2d 372, 373-374, Iv denied 93 NY2d 968).

The court’s finding that appellant was guilty of the crimes charged was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. The victim testified cogently and consistently about the events at issue, and we see no reason to disturb the court’s determinations concerning credibility. Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Saxe, Ellerin, Rubin and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

297 A.D.2d 610, 747 N.Y.2d 362, 747 N.Y.S.2d 362, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8809, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-robert-f-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack