Matter of Nathaniel W.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Nathaniel W.

121 A.D.3d 407, 993 N.Y.S.2d 311

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 2, 2014·No. 13097·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Mary E. Bednar, J.), entered on or about June 6, 2012, 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 grand larceny in the fourth degree 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 petition was facially sufficient (see generally Matter of Rodney J., 83 NY2d 503 [1994]). The allegations adequately supported an inference of accessorial liability.

The court properly denied appellant’s motion to suppress a showup identification. The showup, which was conducted in close spatial and temporal proximity to the crime, was justified by the interest of making a prompt determination as to whether appellant was involved in the crime (see People v Love, 57 NY2d 1023, 1024 [1982]). The record fails to support appellant’s assertion that the police made suggestive remarks to the victim in connection with the showup.

The court’s finding was based on legally sufficient evidence *408 and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis to disturb the court’s determinations concerning credibility. The victim’s testimony as to appellant’s conduct before, during and after the crime supports the inference that he shared his companion’s intent to steal the victim’s phone and intentionally aided his companion in doing so.

Concur — Gonzalez, EJ., Saxe, Richter, Feinman 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 (Mary E. Bednar, J.), entered on or about June 6, 2012, 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 grand larceny in the fourth degree 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 petition was facially sufficient (see generally Matter of Rodney J., 83 NY2d 503 [1994]). The allegations adequately supported an inference of accessorial liability.

The court properly denied appellant’s motion to suppress a showup identification. The showup, which was conducted in close spatial and temporal proximity to the crime, was justified by the interest of making a prompt determination as to whether appellant was involved in the crime (see People v Love, 57 NY2d 1023, 1024 [1982]). The record fails to support appellant’s assertion that the police made suggestive remarks to the victim in connection with the showup.

The court’s finding was based on legally sufficient evidence *408 and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis to disturb the court’s determinations concerning credibility. The victim’s testimony as to appellant’s conduct before, during and after the crime supports the inference that he shared his companion’s intent to steal the victim’s phone and intentionally aided his companion in doing so.

Concur — Gonzalez, EJ., Saxe, Richter, Feinman and Kapnick, JJ.

Matter of Nathaniel W., 121 A.D.3d 407, 993 N.Y.S.2d 311 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

121 A.D.3d 407 (Matter of Nathaniel W.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related