Matter of Lesean C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Lesean C.

137 A.D.3d 907, 26 N.Y.S.3d 773

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

DecidedMarch 9, 2016

Docket2015-01293

StatusPublished

This text of 137 A.D.3d 907 (Matter of Lesean 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 Lesean C., 137 A.D.3d 907, 26 N.Y.S.3d 773 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County *908 (Jacqueline D. Williams, J.), dated. January 6, 2015. The order of disposition adjudicated Lesean C. a juvenile delinquent and placed him on probation for a period of 18 months. The appeal brings up for review an order of fact-finding of that court dated July 1, 2014, which, after a hearing, found that Lesean C. committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, criminal possession of a firearm, criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree.

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

The appellant contends that the Family Court’s finding that he possessed a handgun found in a vehicle in which he was a passenger was not supported by legally sufficient evidence. 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, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the appellant committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law § 265.03 [3]), criminal possession of a firearm (Penal Law § 265.01-b), and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 265.01 [1]). 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 [2015]; cf. CPL 470.15 [5]), we nevertheless 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 determination with respect to those charges 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., Hall, Cohen and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County *908 (Jacqueline D. Williams, J.), dated. January 6, 2015. The order of disposition adjudicated Lesean C. a juvenile delinquent and placed him on probation for a period of 18 months. The appeal brings up for review an order of fact-finding of that court dated July 1, 2014, which, after a hearing, found that Lesean C. committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, criminal possession of a firearm, criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree.

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

The appellant contends that the Family Court’s finding that he possessed a handgun found in a vehicle in which he was a passenger was not supported by legally sufficient evidence. 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, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the appellant committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law § 265.03 [3]), criminal possession of a firearm (Penal Law § 265.01-b), and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 265.01 [1]). 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 [2015]; cf. CPL 470.15 [5]), we nevertheless 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 determination with respect to those charges 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., Hall, Cohen and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

137 A.D.3d 907, 26 N.Y.S.3d 773, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-lesean-c-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack