Matter of Christian C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Christian C.

141 A.D.3d 581, 34 N.Y.S.3d 898

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

DecidedJuly 13, 2016

Docket2015-08921

StatusPublished

This text of 141 A.D.3d 581 (Matter of Christian 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

Matter of Christian C., 141 A.D.3d 581, 34 N.Y.S.3d 898 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal from an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Richard Hoffman, J.), dated August 18, 2015. The order of fact-finding and disposition, after fact-finding and dispositional hearings, inter alia, found that Christian C. had committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crime of sexual misconduct, and adjudicated him a juvenile delinquent.

Ordered that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The appellant’s contention that he was deprived of his right to a speedy dispositional hearing is unpreserved for appellate review (see Matter of Jacob LL., 129 AD3d 1407, 1408 [2015]; Matter of Michael P., 213 AD2d 717, 718 [1995]) and, in any event, is without merit (see Family Ct Act § 350.1; Matter of Andre M., 299 AD2d 967, 968 [2002]).

*582 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 establish that the appellant committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crime of sexual misconduct (Penal Law § 130.20). Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see Matter of Tiyana D.R., 130 AD3d 833, 834 [2015]; cf. CPL 470.15 [5]), we accord deference to the factfinder’s opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see Matter of Darnell C., 66 AD3d 771, 772 [2009]; cf People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the Family Court’s fact-finding determination was not against the weight of the evidence (see Family Ct Act § 342.2 [2]; cf. People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633, 644-645 [2006]).

Rivera, J.P., Balkin, Hinds-Radix and Barros, JJ., concur.

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

— Appeal from an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Richard Hoffman, J.), dated August 18, 2015. The order of fact-finding and disposition, after fact-finding and dispositional hearings, inter alia, found that Christian C. had committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crime of sexual misconduct, and adjudicated him a juvenile delinquent.

Ordered that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The appellant’s contention that he was deprived of his right to a speedy dispositional hearing is unpreserved for appellate review (see Matter of Jacob LL., 129 AD3d 1407, 1408 [2015]; Matter of Michael P., 213 AD2d 717, 718 [1995]) and, in any event, is without merit (see Family Ct Act § 350.1; Matter of Andre M., 299 AD2d 967, 968 [2002]).

*582 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 establish that the appellant committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crime of sexual misconduct (Penal Law § 130.20). Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see Matter of Tiyana D.R., 130 AD3d 833, 834 [2015]; cf. CPL 470.15 [5]), we accord deference to the factfinder’s opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see Matter of Darnell C., 66 AD3d 771, 772 [2009]; cf People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the Family Court’s fact-finding determination was not against the weight of the evidence (see Family Ct Act § 342.2 [2]; cf. People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633, 644-645 [2006]).

Rivera, J.P., Balkin, Hinds-Radix and Barros, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

141 A.D.3d 581, 34 N.Y.S.3d 898, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-christian-c-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack