Matter of Tyquan C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Tyquan C.

123 A.D.3d 502, 998 N.Y.S.2d 188

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

DecidedDecember 11, 2014

Docket13751

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 123 A.D.3d 502 (Matter of Tyquan C.) 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 Tyquan C., 123 A.D.3d 502, 998 N.Y.S.2d 188 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Mary E. Bednar, J.), entered on or about July 25, 2013, 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, grand larceny in the fourth degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, and placed him with the Administration for Children’s Services’ Close to Home program for a period of 18 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s finding was not against the weight of the evi *503 dence (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 record establishes that the victim had a sufficient opportunity to observe appellant, and that he made a reliable identification.

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying appellant’s recusal motion (see People v Moreno, 70 NY2d 403, 405 [1987]). The court is presumed capable of making a fair fact-finding determination, based on the evidence adduced at that proceeding and the relevant burden of proof, notwithstanding that it had presided over other hearings earlier in the case and made findings of fact on issues other than appellant’s guilt or innocence. We have considered and rejected appellant’s argument that the court was legally disqualified under Judiciary Law § 14.

Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Tom, Friedman, Acosta and Moskowitz, 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 July 25, 2013, 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, grand larceny in the fourth degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, and placed him with the Administration for Children’s Services’ Close to Home program for a period of 18 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s finding was not against the weight of the evi *503 dence (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 record establishes that the victim had a sufficient opportunity to observe appellant, and that he made a reliable identification.

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying appellant’s recusal motion (see People v Moreno, 70 NY2d 403, 405 [1987]). The court is presumed capable of making a fair fact-finding determination, based on the evidence adduced at that proceeding and the relevant burden of proof, notwithstanding that it had presided over other hearings earlier in the case and made findings of fact on issues other than appellant’s guilt or innocence. We have considered and rejected appellant’s argument that the court was legally disqualified under Judiciary Law § 14.

Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Tom, Friedman, Acosta and Moskowitz, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 A.D.3d 502, 998 N.Y.S.2d 188, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-tyquan-c-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack