Matter of Celene M.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Celene M.

138 A.D.3d 426, 27 N.Y.S.3d 866

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

DecidedApril 5, 2016

Docket733

StatusPublished

This text of 138 A.D.3d 426 (Matter of Celene M.) 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

Matter of Celene M., 138 A.D.3d 426, 27 N.Y.S.3d 866 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Sidney Gribetz, J.), entered on or about December 17, 2014, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent upon a fact-finding determination that she committed acts that, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of assault in the third degree and menacing in the third degree, and placed her on probation 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 (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the court’s determinations concerning identification and credibility. There was ample evidence to establish the element of physical injury (see e.g. People v Mullings, 105 AD3d 407 [1st Dept 2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 945 [2013]). We have considered and rejected appellant’s arguments concerning the menacing charge, including her challenge to the sufficiency of that count of the petition (see Matter of Orenzo H., 33 AD3d 492, 493 [1st Dept 2006]).

Concur — Tom, J.P., Friedman, Richter, Gische and Gesmer, JJ.

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

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Sidney Gribetz, J.), entered on or about December 17, 2014, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent upon a fact-finding determination that she committed acts that, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of assault in the third degree and menacing in the third degree, and placed her on probation 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 (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the court’s determinations concerning identification and credibility. There was ample evidence to establish the element of physical injury (see e.g. People v Mullings, 105 AD3d 407 [1st Dept 2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 945 [2013]). We have considered and rejected appellant’s arguments concerning the menacing charge, including her challenge to the sufficiency of that count of the petition (see Matter of Orenzo H., 33 AD3d 492, 493 [1st Dept 2006]).

Concur — Tom, J.P., Friedman, Richter, Gische and Gesmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

138 A.D.3d 426, 27 N.Y.S.3d 866, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-celene-m-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack