In re Wendy C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Wendy C.

26 A.D.3d 271, 808 N.Y.S.2d 901

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

DecidedFebruary 23, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 26 A.D.3d 271 (In re Wendy C.) 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 Wendy C., 26 A.D.3d 271, 808 N.Y.S.2d 901 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Susan R. Larabee, J.), entered on or about July 15, 2004, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that appellant committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of assault in the third degree, reckless endangerment in the second degree, aggravated harassment in the second degree and menacing in the third degree, and imposed a conditional discharge for a period of 12 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 (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]). The credible evidence established the elements of each offense and disproved appellant’s justification defense beyond a reasonable doubt. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Mazzarelli, Marlow, Sullivan and Sweeny, 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 (Susan R. Larabee, J.), entered on or about July 15, 2004, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that appellant committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of assault in the third degree, reckless endangerment in the second degree, aggravated harassment in the second degree and menacing in the third degree, and imposed a conditional discharge for a period of 12 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 (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]). The credible evidence established the elements of each offense and disproved appellant’s justification defense beyond a reasonable doubt. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Mazzarelli, Marlow, Sullivan and Sweeny, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 A.D.3d 271, 808 N.Y.S.2d 901, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-wendy-c-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack