In re Shawn R.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Shawn R.

67 A.D.3d 598, 889 N.Y.S.2d 177, 66 A.D.2d 603, 887 N.Y.S.2d 98

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

DecidedNovember 24, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 67 A.D.3d 598 (In re Shawn R.) 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 Shawn R., 67 A.D.3d 598, 889 N.Y.S.2d 177, 66 A.D.2d 603, 887 N.Y.S.2d 98 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Monica Drinane, J), entered on or about September 10, 2008, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that he had committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of robbery in the second degree, and placed him on probation for a period of 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s fact-finding determination was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the court’s determinations concerning credibility and identification. The victim’s testimony clearly established that appellant was not merely present at the scene of the robbery, but that he participated by pulling the victim to the ground, taking his property, and passing it to an accomplice. Concur—Friedman, J.P., McGuire, Renwick, Richter 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 (Monica Drinane, J), entered on or about September 10, 2008, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that he had committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of robbery in the second degree, and placed him on probation for a period of 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s fact-finding determination was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the court’s determinations concerning credibility and identification. The victim’s testimony clearly established that appellant was not merely present at the scene of the robbery, but that he participated by pulling the victim to the ground, taking his property, and passing it to an accomplice. Concur—Friedman, J.P., McGuire, Renwick, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

67 A.D.3d 598, 889 N.Y.S.2d 177, 66 A.D.2d 603, 887 N.Y.S.2d 98, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-shawn-r-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack