In re Shakirrah C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Shakirrah C.

66 A.D.3d 1492, 885 N.Y.S.2d 656

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 2, 2009·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Monroe County (Joseph G. Nesser, J.), entered June 16, 2008 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3. The order adjudged that respondent is a juvenile delinquent and placed respondent on probation.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Respondent appeals from an order adjudicating her to be a juvenile delinquent based on the finding that she committed an act that, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of resisting arrest (Penal Law § 205.30). Contrary to respondent’s contention, “the evidence presented at the hearing, when viewed in the light most favorable to the presentment agency . . . , is legally sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that respondent committed the acts alleged in the petition” (Matter of Aron B., 46 AD3d 1431, 1431 [2007] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Present—Smith, J.P., Fahey Garni, Pine and Gorski, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Monroe County (Joseph G. Nesser, J.), entered June 16, 2008 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3. The order adjudged that respondent is a juvenile delinquent and placed respondent on probation.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Respondent appeals from an order adjudicating her to be a juvenile delinquent based on the finding that she committed an act that, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of resisting arrest (Penal Law § 205.30). Contrary to respondent’s contention, “the evidence presented at the hearing, when viewed in the light most favorable to the presentment agency . . . , is legally sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that respondent committed the acts alleged in the petition” (Matter of Aron B., 46 AD3d 1431, 1431 [2007] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Present—Smith, J.P., Fahey Garni, Pine and Gorski, JJ.

In re Shakirrah C., 66 A.D.3d 1492, 885 N.Y.S.2d 656 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

66 A.D.3d 1492 (In re Shakirrah C.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related