In re Xavier R.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Xavier R.

13 A.D.3d 119, 785 N.Y.S.2d 687, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15018

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

DecidedDecember 9, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 13 A.D.3d 119 (In re Xavier 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 Xavier R., 13 A.D.3d 119, 785 N.Y.S.2d 687, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15018 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Sheldon M. Rand, J.), entered on or about August 8, 2003, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that he committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute attempted robbery in the second degree and assault 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 on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis for disturbing the court’s determinations concerning identification and credibility (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). Although the victim could not make an in-court identification, he made a reliable out-of-court identification very shortly after the incident. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Ellerin, Lerner, Marlow and Catterson, 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 (Sheldon M. Rand, J.), entered on or about August 8, 2003, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that he committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute attempted robbery in the second degree and assault 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 on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis for disturbing the court’s determinations concerning identification and credibility (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). Although the victim could not make an in-court identification, he made a reliable out-of-court identification very shortly after the incident. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Ellerin, Lerner, Marlow and Catterson, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 A.D.3d 119, 785 N.Y.S.2d 687, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15018, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-xavier-r-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack