In re Tiana R.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Tiana R.

22 A.D.3d 269, 801 N.Y.S.2d 737

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

DecidedOctober 11, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 22 A.D.3d 269 (In re Tiana 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 Tiana R., 22 A.D.3d 269, 801 N.Y.S.2d 737 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Harold J. Lynch, J.), entered August 9, 2004, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that she had committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of assault in the third degree, and placed her on probation for a period of 15 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s finding was based upon legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis for disturbing the court’s determinations concerning credibility, including its weighing of conflicting testimony (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]). Concur—Buckley, P.J., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Friedman and Sweeny, JJ.

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

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Harold J. Lynch, J.), entered August 9, 2004, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that she had committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of assault in the third degree, and placed her on probation for a period of 15 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s finding was based upon legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis for disturbing the court’s determinations concerning credibility, including its weighing of conflicting testimony (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]). Concur—Buckley, P.J., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Friedman and Sweeny, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 A.D.3d 269, 801 N.Y.S.2d 737, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-tiana-r-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack