Matter of Ganjel P.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Ganjel P.

131 A.D.3d 877, 16 N.Y.S.3d 724

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

DecidedSeptember 29, 2015

Docket15706

StatusPublished

This text of 131 A.D.3d 877 (Matter of Ganjel P.) 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 Ganjel P., 131 A.D.3d 877, 16 N.Y.S.3d 724 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Susan R. Larabee, J.), entered on or about April 11, 2014, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent upon a fact-finding determination that he committed an act that, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of assault in the third degree, and placed him on probation for a period of 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The fact-finding determination was supported by 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 credibility determinations. The evidence established that appellant was the initial aggressor, and it disproved his justification defense beyond a reasonable doubt.

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Gische and Kapnick, 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 April 11, 2014, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent upon a fact-finding determination that he committed an act that, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of assault in the third degree, and placed him on probation for a period of 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The fact-finding determination was supported by 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 credibility determinations. The evidence established that appellant was the initial aggressor, and it disproved his justification defense beyond a reasonable doubt.

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Gische and Kapnick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

131 A.D.3d 877, 16 N.Y.S.3d 724, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-ganjel-p-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack