Jamal V., Matter of
| Decision Date | 05 March 1990 |
| Citation | 159 A.D.2d 507,552 N.Y.S.2d 376 |
| Parties | In the Matter of JAMAL V. (Anonymous), Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Lenore Gittis, New York City (Marcia Egger, of counsel), for appellant.
Victor A. Kovner, Corp. Counsel, New York City (Ellen B. Fishman and Phyllis Arnold, of counsel), for respondent.
Before MANGANO, J.P., and KUNZEMAN, EIBER and HARWOOD, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a juvenile deliquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, the appeal is from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Schecter, J.), dated August 16, 1988, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court, dated May 27, 1988, made after a hearing, finding that the appellant had committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crime of assault in the third degree, adjudged him to be a juvenile delinquent, and placed him on probation for a period of one year.
ORDERED that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
A review of the record shows that the complainant, a 12-year-old seventh grader, while climbing the school stairs, approached the third floor landing. He saw the appellant standing in front of a group of boys. The appellant had a sharp bladed object in his hands. None of the other boys had any sharp objects in their hands. As the complainant passed the landing, he was stabbed in the buttocks. He turned around and saw only the appellant who was leaving the area. The complainant recognized the appellant by his distinctive clothing and because he had seen him at the school prior to the incident.
This case was tried before a court without a jury. In such cases, the greatest respect must be accorded the determination of the hearing court in assessing the credibility of witnesses and resolving disputed questions of fact (see, Matter of Christopher T., 156 A.D.2d 190, 548 N.Y.S.2d 446 [1st Dept., 1989]; Matter of Angel R., 134 A.D.2d 265, 266, 520 N.Y.S.2d 444). The decision of the Family Court is accorded the same weight as that given to a jury verdict (see, People v. Carter, 63 N.Y.2d 530, 483 N.Y.S.2d 654, 473 N.E.2d 6; Matter of Michael D., 109 A.D.2d 633, 486 N.Y.S.2d 213, affd. 66 N.Y.2d 843, 498 N.Y.S.2d 365, 489 N.E.2d 252; Matter of Christopher T., supra; Matter of Angel R., supra ).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the petitioner (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Kuzdzal
...since appellate courts will rightly defer to trial court findings of fact and credibility (see e.g., Matter of Jamal V., 159 A.D.2d 507, 508, 552 N.Y.S.2d 376 [2d Dept. 1990] [where a "case was tried before a court without a jury ... the greatest respect must be accorded the determination o......
-
Y.K., Matter of
...is accorded the same deference as a jury verdict (see, Matter of Bernard J., 171 A.D.2d 794, 567 N.Y.S.2d 608; Matter of Jamal V., 159 A.D.2d 507, 552 N.Y.S.2d 376; Matter of Michael D., 109 A.D.2d 633, 486 N.Y.S.2d 213, affd. 66 N.Y.2d 843, 498 N.Y.S.2d 365, 489 N.E.2d 252). Unlike the maj......
-
Commissioner of Social Services of City of New York on Behalf of Shevonne S. v. Jannie S.
...unsupported by the record (see, People v. Garafolo, 44 A.D.2d 86, 88, 353 N.Y.S.2d 500; Matter of Joey T., supra; Matter of Jamal V., 159 A.D.2d 507, 552 N.Y.S.2d 376). In the present matter, the fact-finding court found the petitioner's witnesses to be "open, frank, direct and credible". I......
-
William T., Matter of
...of the hearing court in assessing the credibility of [the witnesses] and resolving disputed questions of fact (see, Matter of Jamal V., 159 A.D.2d 507 ; Matter of Angel R., 134 A.D.2d 265, 266 . The decision of the Family Court is accorded the same weight as that given to a jury verdict (se......