Joseph J., Matter of
| Decision Date | 27 June 1994 |
| Parties | In the Matter of JOSEPH J. (Anonymous), Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Lenore Gittis, New York City (Judith Waksberg, of counsel), for appellant.
Paul A. Crotty, Corp. Counsel, New York City (Pamela Seider Dolgow, of counsel, Stephanie Freeman Goldstein, on the brief), 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 (Lauria, J.), dated November 12, 1992, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court, dated October 22, 1992, 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, robbery in the third degree, grand larceny in the fourth degree, petit larceny, and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, adjudged him to be a juvenile delinquent, and placed him with the Division for Youth, Title II, for a period of 18 months. The appeal brings up for review the fact-finding order dated October 22, 1992.
ORDERED that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the presenting agency (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932; Matter of Stafford B., 187 A.D.2d 649, 650, 591 N.Y.S.2d 785), we find that it was legally sufficient to support the fact-finding order. Resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence, are primarily questions to be determined by the trier of facts, which saw and heard the witnesses (see, People v. Gaimari, 176 N.Y. 84, 94, 68 N.E. 112). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see generally, People v. Garafolo, 44 A.D.2d 86, 88, 353 N.Y.S.2d 500; see also, Matter of Jermaine T., 150 A.D.2d 702, 541 N.Y.S.2d 577; 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). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the finding of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (cf., CPL 470.15[5].
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Brown
... ... 59 N.Y.S.3d 392ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, on the law, the defendant's plea of guilty is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for resentencing.On April 14, 2014, the defendant appeared before the Supreme Court, Kings County ... ...
-
Torry R., Matter of
...be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see, People v. Garafolo, 44 A.D.2d 86, 88, 353 N.Y.S.2d 500; Matter of Joseph J., 205 A.D.2d 776, 614 N.Y.S.2d 316). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the determination was not against the we......
-
Matter of Raymond G.
...on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see, Matter of Derrick N., 228 A.D.2d 445; Matter of Joseph J., 205 A.D.2d 776, 777; Matter of Kwan M., 159 A.D.2d 707; cf., People v Garafolo, 44 A.D.2d 86, 88). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, w......
-
Donnell T., In re
...supra; Matter of Jamarl J., supra; Matter of Haile B., supra; Matter of Nnennya P., 247 A.D.2d 476, 667 N.Y.S.2d 952; Matter of Joseph J., 205 A.D.2d 776, 614 N.Y.S.2d 316). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by......