In re Theodore H.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Theodore H.

63 A.D.3d 446, 879 N.Y.S.2d 334

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

DecidedJune 4, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 63 A.D.3d 446 (In re Theodore 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 Theodore H., 63 A.D.3d 446, 879 N.Y.S.2d 334 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Jane Pearl, J.), entered on or about July 31, 2008, 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 attempted robbery in the second degree, attempted assault in the third degree and menacing in the third degree, and placed him 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 Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the court’s determinations concerning credibility. There was ample evidence to corroborate the testimony of appellant’s accomplice (see People v Caban, 5 NY3d 143, 155 [2005]). Concur—Andrias, J.E, Buckley, Moskowitz, DeGrasse and Richter, JJ.,

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

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Jane Pearl, J.), entered on or about July 31, 2008, 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 attempted robbery in the second degree, attempted assault in the third degree and menacing in the third degree, and placed him 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 Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the court’s determinations concerning credibility. There was ample evidence to corroborate the testimony of appellant’s accomplice (see People v Caban, 5 NY3d 143, 155 [2005]). Concur—Andrias, J.E, Buckley, Moskowitz, DeGrasse and Richter, JJ.,

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 A.D.3d 446, 879 N.Y.S.2d 334, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-theodore-h-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack