Stephanie F., Matter of
| Decision Date | 28 June 1993 |
| Citation | 599 N.Y.S.2d 1014,194 A.D.2d 789 |
| Parties | In the Matter of STEPHANIE F. (Anonymous), Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Lenore Gittis, New York City (Raymond E. Rogers, of counsel), for appellant. O. Peter Sherwood, Corp. Counsel, New York City (Francis F. Caputo and Elizabeth I. Freedman, of counsel; Scott A. Schechter 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 (Sparrow, J.), dated June 15, 1992, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court dated March 30, 1992, finding that the appellant had committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crime of grand larceny in the fourth degree, adjudged her to be a juvenile delinquent and placed her in the custody of the New York State Division for Youth for a period of 18 months.
The appeal brings up for review the fact-finding order dated March 30, 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), 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, People v. Garafolo, 44 A.D.2d 86, 88, 353 N.Y.S.2d 500; see also, Matter of Stafford B., 187 A.D.2d 649, 591 N.Y.S.2d 785; 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
-
Sorrentino v. Sorrentino
...611 N.Y.S.2d 357 ... 203 A.D.2d 829 ... In the Matter of Kathy SORRENTINO, Respondent, ... John SORRENTINO, Appellant ... Supreme Court, Appellate Division, ... Third Department ... April 28, 1994 ... ...
-
James B., In re
...favorable to the presentment agency (cf., People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932; see, Matter of Stephanie F., 194 A.D.2d 789, 599 N.Y.S.2d 1014), we find that it was legally sufficient to support the fact-finding order. Resolutions of issues of credibility, as we......
-
Matter of Jacqueline S.
...is modified accordingly. Viewed in the light most favorable to the presentment agency (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620; Matter of Stephanie F., 194 A.D.2d 789), we find that the evidence adduced at the fact-finding hearing was legally sufficient to establish the appellant's guilt beyond......
-
Ananias W., Matter of
...to the Presentment Agency (cf., People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932; see also, Matter of Stephanie F., 194 A.D.2d 789, 599 N.Y.S.2d 1014), it was legally sufficient to establish the appellant's guilt of four counts of assault in the third degree (see, Penal Law......