Matter of Malik P.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Malik P.

131 A.D.3d 897, 16 N.Y.S.3d 729

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

DecidedSeptember 29, 2015

Docket15732

StatusPublished

This text of 131 A.D.3d 897 (Matter of Malik 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 Malik P., 131 A.D.3d 897, 16 N.Y.S.3d 729 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Family Court, New York County (Susan R. Larabee, J.), entered on or about August 8, 2014, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent upon a fact-finding determination that he committed acts that, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of petit larceny and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, and placed him 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 credibility determinations, including its *898 evaluation of any inconsistencies in testimony.

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Renwick and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

Order, Family Court, New York County (Susan R. Larabee, J.), entered on or about August 8, 2014, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent upon a fact-finding determination that he committed acts that, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of petit larceny and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, and placed him 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 credibility determinations, including its *898 evaluation of any inconsistencies in testimony.

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Renwick and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

131 A.D.3d 897, 16 N.Y.S.3d 729, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-malik-p-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack