In the Matter of Clarence D.

• Decision Date: 20 October 2011
• Parties: In the Matter of CLARENCE D., Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent.Columbia County Attorney's Office, Respondent;Clarence D., Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

88 A.D.3d 1074
931 N.Y.S.2d 151
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 07313

In the Matter of CLARENCE D., Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent.Columbia County Attorney's Office, Respondent;Clarence D., Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

Oct. 20, 2011.

[931 N.Y.S.2d 152]

Douglas E. Coleman, Hudson, for appellant.Daniel Tuczinski, County Attorney, Hudson (Clarissa D. Garvey of counsel), for respondent.Before: MERCURE, J.P., ROSE, MALONE JR., KAVANAGH and GARRY, JJ.ROSE, J.

[88 A.D.3d 1074] Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Columbia County (Nichols, J.), entered January 21, 2009, which granted petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct. Act article 3, to adjudicate respondent a juvenile delinquent.

Petitioner commenced this juvenile delinquency proceeding based upon charges stemming from an incident between respondent and the mother of his child. After a fact-finding hearing, Family Court found that respondent had committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of attempted criminal sexual act in the first degree, attempted assault in the third degree, criminal mischief in the fourth degree and endangering the welfare of a child. Following a dispositional hearing, respondent was adjudicated a juvenile delinquent and placed in the custody of the Columbia County Commissioner of Social Services for a period of 12 months.

There is no merit to respondent's challenge to the facial sufficiency of the petition, as it is supported by the victim's sworn deposition establishing each element of the crimes charged ( see Family Ct. Act § 311.2 [2] ). Contrary to respondent's contention, his inculpatory statements contained in the victim's supporting deposition were based upon her personal knowledge and, therefore, they constitute nonhearsay allegations within the meaning of Family Ct. Act § 311.2(3) ( see Matter of Todd Z., 295 A.D.2d 652, 652–653, 743 N.Y.S.2d 190 [2002]; Matter of Christopher P., 260 A.D.2d 212, 213, 688 N.Y.S.2d 520 [1999];

[931 N.Y.S.2d 153]

Matter of Rodney J., 108 A.D.2d 307, 311, 489 N.Y.S.2d 160 [1985] ).

Respondent's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence at the fact-finding hearing is also without merit. The victim testified that, among other things, respondent repeatedly demanded oral sex from her while grabbing her hair, pulling chunks of it out and restraining her on the bed by placing his leg over her. Viewed in a light most favorable to petitioner...