In re Xavier-Jamaal H.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Xavier-Jamaal H.

51 A.D.3d 922, 856 N.Y.S.2d 880

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

DecidedMay 20, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 51 A.D.3d 922 (In re Xavier-Jamaal 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 Xavier-Jamaal H., 51 A.D.3d 922, 856 N.Y.S.2d 880 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, the appeal is from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Queens County (Bogacz, J.), dated June 26, 2007, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court dated March 26, 2007, made after a hearing, finding that the appellant committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of criminal sexual act in the first degree and attempted criminal sexual act in the first degree, adjudged him to be a juvenile delinquent, and placed him on probation for a period of 12 months. The appeal brings up for review the order of fact-finding dated March 26, 2007.

Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the presentment agency (see Matter of David H., 69 NY2d 792, 793 [1987]), we find that it was legally sufficient to support the Family Court’s findings. Moreover, resolution of issues of credibility is primarily a matter to be determined by the finder of fact, which saw and heard the witnesses, and its determination in this regard should be accorded great deference on appeal (see Matter of Anthony R., 43 AD3d 939 [2007]; Matter of Charles S., 41 AD3d 484 [2007]; Matter of Christian M., 37 AD3d 834 [2007]). Upon the exercise of our factual review power (cf. CPL 470.15 [5]), we are satisfied that the court’s findings were not against the weight of the evidence (see Matter of Robert R, 16 AD3d 512, 513 [2005]; Matter of Kevin M., 6 AD3d 616 [2004]). Spolzino, J.E, Balkin, Dickerson and Belen, JJ., concur.

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

In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, the appeal is from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Queens County (Bogacz, J.), dated June 26, 2007, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court dated March 26, 2007, made after a hearing, finding that the appellant committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of criminal sexual act in the first degree and attempted criminal sexual act in the first degree, adjudged him to be a juvenile delinquent, and placed him on probation for a period of 12 months. The appeal brings up for review the order of fact-finding dated March 26, 2007.

Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the presentment agency (see Matter of David H., 69 NY2d 792, 793 [1987]), we find that it was legally sufficient to support the Family Court’s findings. Moreover, resolution of issues of credibility is primarily a matter to be determined by the finder of fact, which saw and heard the witnesses, and its determination in this regard should be accorded great deference on appeal (see Matter of Anthony R., 43 AD3d 939 [2007]; Matter of Charles S., 41 AD3d 484 [2007]; Matter of Christian M., 37 AD3d 834 [2007]). Upon the exercise of our factual review power (cf. CPL 470.15 [5]), we are satisfied that the court’s findings were not against the weight of the evidence (see Matter of Robert R, 16 AD3d 512, 513 [2005]; Matter of Kevin M., 6 AD3d 616 [2004]). Spolzino, J.E, Balkin, Dickerson and Belen, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 A.D.3d 922, 856 N.Y.S.2d 880, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-xavier-jamaal-h-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack