In re Aaron P.
| Decision Date | 13 April 2010 |
| Citation | 898 N.Y.S.2d 466,72 A.D.3d 826 |
| Parties | In the Matter of AARON P. (Anonymous), appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
72 A.D.3d 826
In the Matter of AARON P. (Anonymous), appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
April 13, 2010.
Steven Banks, New York, N.Y. (Tamara A. Steckler and Raymond E. Rogers of counsel), for appellant.
Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Kristin M. Helmers and Deborah A. Brenner of counsel), for respondent.
In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, the appeal is from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Queens County (Hunt, J.), dated May 20, 2009, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court dated March 31, 2009, made after a hearing, finding that the appellant had committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted 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 after a dispositional hearing, adjudged him to be a juvenile delinquent, placed him on probation for a period of 12 months, and ordered him to pay restitution and to complete 90 hours of community service. The appeal from the order of disposition brings up for review the fact-finding order.
ORDERED that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the presentment agency ( see Matter of David H., 69 N.Y.2d 792, 793, 513 N.Y.S.2d 111, 505 N.E.2d 621; cf. People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the appellant's identity as one of the persons involved in the instant incident.
Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence ( see Matter of Victor I., 57 A.D.3d 779, 868 N.Y.S.2d 897; Matter of Robert A., 57 A.D.3d 770, 870 N.Y.S.2d 392; cf. CPL 470.15[5]; People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1), we nevertheless accord great deference to the fact finder's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor ( see Matter of Victor I., 57 A.D.3d 779, 868 N.Y.S.2d 897; Matter of Robert A., 57 A.D.3d 770, 870 N.Y.S.2d 392; cf.
People v. Mateo, 2 N.Y.3d 383, 779 N.Y.S.2d 399, 811 N.E.2d 1053, cert. denied 542 U.S. 946, 124 S.Ct. 2929, 159 L.Ed.2d 828; People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672). Upon the exercise of our factual...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Navaretta v. Town of Oyster Bay
...a residence, and created hazardous or detrimental conditions, including glare from lighting ( see Town Code §§ 246-5.5.14.3.2, 3.4, 3.6,72 A.D.3d 8263.8, 3.9, 3.11). Thus, the ZBA's determination had a rational basis and was neither arbitrary and capricious nor contrary to law ( see Matter ......
-
In re Tafari M.
...869; Matter of Gustav D., 79 A.D.3d 868, 912 N.Y.S.2d 424; Matter of Abel R., 77 A.D.3d 758, 759, 908 N.Y.S.2d 601; Matter of Aaron P., 72 A.D.3d 826, 827, 898 N.Y.S.2d 466), and the appellant was not entitled to an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal merely because this was his first......
-
In re Michael L.
...delinquency proceeding ( see Family Ct. Act § 141; Matter of Ashley P., 74 A.D.3d 1075, 1076, 903 N.Y.S.2d 146; Matter of Aaron P., 72 A.D.3d 826, 827, 898 N.Y.S.2d 466; Matter of Summer D., 67 A.D.3d 1008, 1009, 890 N.Y.S.2d 562). "The appellant was not entitled to an adjournment in contem......
-
In re Jalen G.
...869;Matter of Gustav D., 79 A.D.3d 868, 869, 912 N.Y.S.2d 424;Matter of Abel R., 77 A.D.3d 758, 759, 908 N.Y.S.2d 601;Matter of Aaron P., 72 A.D.3d 826, 827, 898 N.Y.S.2d 466). Here, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in placing the [104 A.D.3d 854]appellant in the custod......