Matter of Shalick M.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Shalick M.

133 A.D.3d 413, 18 N.Y.S.3d 541

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

DecidedNovember 5, 2015

Docket16031

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 133 A.D.3d 413 (Matter of Shalick M.) 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 Shalick M., 133 A.D.3d 413, 18 N.Y.S.3d 541 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Family Court, New York County (Susan R. Larabee, J.), entered on or about August 28, 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 attempted assault in the second degree, attempted assault in the third degree (two counts), reckless endangerment in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree and menacing in the second degree, and placed him on probation for a period of 18 months, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of dismissing the finding as to attempted third-degree assault under Penal Law § 120.00 (2), and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Except as indicated, 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. The record supports the inference that when, during an argument, appellant departed and returned with a knife, with which he cut the victim in the stomach area, appellant intended to cause physical injury. The record also supports the finding as to reckless endangerment, and that finding was consistent with the court’s findings as to offenses requiring intent, because the different mental states involved different results under the facts presented (see People v Trappier, 87 NY2d 55 [1995]). However, as the presentment agency concedes, since Penal Law § 120.00 (2) involves reckless assault, it is legally impossible to attempt that crime.

*414 An 18-month period of probation is the least restrictive dispositional alternative consistent with appellant’s needs and the community’s need for protection (see Matter of Katherine W., 62 NY2d 947 [1984]), particularly given the seriousness of the underlying conduct. Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Acosta, Richter 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 28, 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 attempted assault in the second degree, attempted assault in the third degree (two counts), reckless endangerment in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree and menacing in the second degree, and placed him on probation for a period of 18 months, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of dismissing the finding as to attempted third-degree assault under Penal Law § 120.00 (2), and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Except as indicated, 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. The record supports the inference that when, during an argument, appellant departed and returned with a knife, with which he cut the victim in the stomach area, appellant intended to cause physical injury. The record also supports the finding as to reckless endangerment, and that finding was consistent with the court’s findings as to offenses requiring intent, because the different mental states involved different results under the facts presented (see People v Trappier, 87 NY2d 55 [1995]). However, as the presentment agency concedes, since Penal Law § 120.00 (2) involves reckless assault, it is legally impossible to attempt that crime.

*414 An 18-month period of probation is the least restrictive dispositional alternative consistent with appellant’s needs and the community’s need for protection (see Matter of Katherine W., 62 NY2d 947 [1984]), particularly given the seriousness of the underlying conduct. Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Acosta, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

133 A.D.3d 413, 18 N.Y.S.3d 541, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-shalick-m-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack