In re Timothy D.

306 A.D.2d 149, 761 N.Y.S.2d 53, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7232

This text of 306 A.D.2d 149 (In re Timothy D.) 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 Timothy D., 306 A.D.2d 149, 761 N.Y.S.2d 53, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7232 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Opinion

—Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Myrna Martinez-Perez, J.), entered on or about January 15, 2002, 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 burglary in the second degree, grand larceny in the third degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, and placed him in the custody of the New York State Office of Children and Family Services for placement 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. When caught in the victim’s apartment, appellant gave an explanation for his presence that was incredible and that was contradicted by the presentment agency’s witnesses. Although appellant was acquainted with the victim and his son, there was no credible evidence that appellant had ongoing permission, or any reason to believe he had such permission, to [150]*150force open the door to the victim’s apartment and enter any time he chose to do so (see People v Moore, 285 AD2d 827 [2001]). The evidence also warranted the inference that appellant stole the various items that the victim later found to be missing from his apartment. Appellant’s claim that other persons may have stolen these items is speculative. We have considered and rejected appellant’s remaining arguments. Concur — Buckley, P.J., Mazzarelli, Ellerin, Williams and Marlow, JJ.

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

Related

People v. Moore
285 A.D.2d 827 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
306 A.D.2d 149, 761 N.Y.S.2d 53, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7232, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-timothy-d-nyappdiv-2003.