Matter of Jesse L., 500940.

• Decision Date: 22 February 2007
• Docket Number: 500940.
• Citation: 2007 NY Slip Op 01443,37 A.D.3d 998,830 N.Y.S.2d 811
• Parties: In the Matter of JESSE L., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent. DELAWARE COUNTY ATTORNEY, Respondent; JESSE L., Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

37 A.D.3d 998

830 N.Y.S.2d 811

2007 NY Slip Op 01443

In the Matter of JESSE L., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent.

DELAWARE COUNTY ATTORNEY, Respondent;

JESSE L., Appellant.

500940.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Third Department.

Decided February 22, 2007.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Delaware County (Becker, J.), entered May 15, 2006, which granted petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act article 3, to adjudicate respondent a juvenile delinquent.

Mercure, J.P.

Following a fact-finding hearing, Family Court determined that respondent committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of petit larceny and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree. A dispositional hearing was conducted, and respondent was thereafter adjudicated a juvenile delinquent and placed under the supervision of the Delaware County Probation Department for a one-year period. Respondent now appeals, asserting that the evidence against him was legally insufficient to support an adjudication of juvenile delinquency. We disagree.

A person commits petit larceny when he or she steals property (see Penal Law § 155.25) and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree when he or she "knowingly possesses stolen property, with intent to benefit himself[, herself] or a person other than an owner thereof or to impede the recovery by an owner thereof" (Penal Law § 165.40). At the fact-finding hearing, Austin Tompkins testified that his pocketknife disappeared from his bedroom after respondent spent the night at the Tompkins home during the summer of 2005. Thereafter, respondent showed the knife to Tompkins and, when Tompkins claimed ownership, respondent retorted, "[I]t's mine." Respondent also showed the pocketknife to another acquaintance and bragged that he had stolen it from Tompkins' home. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to petitioner and according due deference to Family Court's resolution of credibility issues, we conclude that there is a "`valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could lead a rational person to the conclusion reached by the [factfinder] on the basis of the evidence at trial' and, as a matter of law, establish all the elements of the crime[s] charged beyond a reasonable doubt" (Matter of William A., 4 AD3d 647, 647-648 [2004], quoting People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]; see Matter of Joshua F., 309 AD2d 1012, 1013 [2003]; Matter of Joseph O., 305 AD2d 743, 744 [2003]; People v Ferry, 260 AD2d 655, 655 [1999]).

We further reject respondent's arguments that the petition should have been dismissed at the conclusion of the dispositional hearing...