In re Shamel H.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Shamel H.

28 A.D.3d 401, 812 N.Y.S.2d 873

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

DecidedApril 27, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 28 A.D.3d 401 (In re Shamel H.) 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 Shamel H., 28 A.D.3d 401, 812 N.Y.S.2d 873 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Monica Drinane, J.), entered on or about April 7, 2005, 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 sexual abuse in the second and third degrees, and placed him on probation 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. There is no basis for disturbing the court’s determinations concerning credibility (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]). Concur— Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Williams, Sweeny and McGuire, JJ.

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

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Monica Drinane, J.), entered on or about April 7, 2005, 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 sexual abuse in the second and third degrees, and placed him on probation 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. There is no basis for disturbing the court’s determinations concerning credibility (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]). Concur— Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Williams, Sweeny and McGuire, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 A.D.3d 401, 812 N.Y.S.2d 873, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-shamel-h-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack