In re Roshanda D.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Roshanda D.

23 A.D.3d 155, 802 N.Y.S.2d 620

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

DecidedNovember 1, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 23 A.D.3d 155 (In re Roshanda D.) 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 Roshanda D., 23 A.D.3d 155, 802 N.Y.S.2d 620 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Alma Cordova, J.), entered on or about June 17, 2004, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that she had committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of grand larceny in the fourth degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, and placed her with the Office of Children and Family Services for a period of 18 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s finding was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). Appellant’s intent to permanently deprive the victim of property could be readily inferred from appellant’s statements and conduct during the incident, including, among other things, her express refusal to give back the property. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Tom, Mazzarelli, Marlow and Catterson JJ.

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

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Alma Cordova, J.), entered on or about June 17, 2004, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that she had committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of grand larceny in the fourth degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, and placed her with the Office of Children and Family Services for a period of 18 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s finding was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). Appellant’s intent to permanently deprive the victim of property could be readily inferred from appellant’s statements and conduct during the incident, including, among other things, her express refusal to give back the property. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Tom, Mazzarelli, Marlow and Catterson JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 A.D.3d 155, 802 N.Y.S.2d 620, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-roshanda-d-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack