Matter of Tavon W.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Tavon W.

134 A.D.3d 500, 20 N.Y.S.3d 527

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

DecidedDecember 15, 2015

Docket16386

StatusPublished

This text of 134 A.D.3d 500 (Matter of Tavon W.) 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 Tavon W., 134 A.D.3d 500, 20 N.Y.S.3d 527 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Susan R. Larabee, J.), entered on or about August 18, 2015, 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 robbery in the second degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, and imposed a conditional discharge 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]). Appellant’s “accomplice liability could reasonably be inferred from the chain of events . . . , which supports the inference that [appellant] intentionally took part in the robbery by leading the victim . . . into a trap. [Appellant’s] conduct and that of the other participant in the crime ‘made little sense unless [appellant] was a participant’ ” (People v Thomas, 113 AD3d 447, 447 [1st Dept 2014], lv denied 22 NY3d 1159 [2014] [citation omitted]). In addition to conduct that can be reasonably interpreted as leading the victim into a trap, appellant acquired the victim’s phone and passed it to an accomplice who fled with it as appellant physically prevented the victim from pursuing the accomplice. Concur — Tom, J.P, Sweeny, Renwick and ManzanetDaniels, 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 August 18, 2015, 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 robbery in the second degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, and imposed a conditional discharge 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]). Appellant’s “accomplice liability could reasonably be inferred from the chain of events . . . , which supports the inference that [appellant] intentionally took part in the robbery by leading the victim . . . into a trap. [Appellant’s] conduct and that of the other participant in the crime ‘made little sense unless [appellant] was a participant’ ” (People v Thomas, 113 AD3d 447, 447 [1st Dept 2014], lv denied 22 NY3d 1159 [2014] [citation omitted]). In addition to conduct that can be reasonably interpreted as leading the victim into a trap, appellant acquired the victim’s phone and passed it to an accomplice who fled with it as appellant physically prevented the victim from pursuing the accomplice. Concur — Tom, J.P, Sweeny, Renwick and ManzanetDaniels, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

134 A.D.3d 500, 20 N.Y.S.3d 527, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-tavon-w-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack