Matter of Tenaj D.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Tenaj D.

134 A.D.3d 433, 19 N.Y.S.3d 732

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

DecidedDecember 3, 2015

Docket16267 16266

StatusPublished

This text of 134 A.D.3d 433 (Matter of Tenaj D.) 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 Tenaj D., 134 A.D.3d 433, 19 N.Y.S.3d 732 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Susan R. Larabee, J.), entered on or about October 16, 2014, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent upon a fact-finding determination that he committed acts that, if committed by an *434 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 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 determinations concerning identification and credibility. The victim’s observations of appellant during the incident, as well as on other occasions, were sufficient to support the conclusion that the victim was able to make a reliable identification of appellant as the person who took her cell phone.

Appellant’s missing witness argument is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that a missing witness inference is unwarranted (see generally People v Gonzalez, 68 NY2d 424 [1986]), and would, in any event, not affect the result. Concur — Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Andrias and Gische, 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 October 16, 2014, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent upon a fact-finding determination that he committed acts that, if committed by an *434 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 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 determinations concerning identification and credibility. The victim’s observations of appellant during the incident, as well as on other occasions, were sufficient to support the conclusion that the victim was able to make a reliable identification of appellant as the person who took her cell phone.

Appellant’s missing witness argument is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that a missing witness inference is unwarranted (see generally People v Gonzalez, 68 NY2d 424 [1986]), and would, in any event, not affect the result. Concur — Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Andrias and Gische, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

134 A.D.3d 433, 19 N.Y.S.3d 732, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-tenaj-d-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack