From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Kenrick C.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Oct 25, 2016
143 A.D.3d 600 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)

Opinion

10-25-2016

In re KENRICK C., Appellant. Presentment Agency.

Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Raymond E. Rogers of counsel), for appellant. Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Mackenzie Fillow of counsel), for presentment agency.


Tamara A. Steckler, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Raymond E. Rogers of counsel), for appellant.

Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Mackenzie Fillow of counsel), for presentment agency.

TOM, J.P., MAZZARELLI, RICHTER, MANZANET–DANIELS, WEBBER, JJ.

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Gayle P. Roberts, J.), entered on or about September 4, 2015, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent upon a fact-finding determination that he had committed acts that, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of criminal obstruction of breathing or blood circulation, assault in the third degree, criminal mischief in the fourth degree, aggravated harassment in the second degree, and two counts of menacing in the third degree, and imposed a conditional discharge for a period of 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.The court's finding was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 348–349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 [2007] ). There is no basis for disturbing the court's credibility determinations. The fact that this incident arose from a dispute between appellant and his sister does not diminish the unlawfulness of appellant's acts.

The criminal obstruction charge was established by evidence that appellant threw his sister to the floor and began “squeezing” her neck until she could barely breathe, which supported a reasonable inference of intent to “impede the normal breathing or circulation of the blood of another person” (Penal Law § 121.11 ; see People v. Briggs, 129 A.D.3d 1201, 1204, 13 N.Y.S.3d 255 [3d Dept.2015], lv. denied 26 N.Y.3d 1038, 22 N.Y.S.3d 167, 43 N.E.3d 377 [2015] ). The evidence also established that appellant intended to cause physical injury to the victim, and caused such injury, in that before choking her, he repeatedly punched her and then “threw” or “pushed” her onto the floor, causing cuts and bruises that took a week to heal, soreness that lasted two weeks, and a “dark mark” on her neck that was still visible at the time of the fact-finding hearing (see People v. Chiddick, 8 N.Y.3d 445, 834 N.Y.S.2d 710, 866 N.E.2d 1039 [2007] ; Matter of Carysse R., 90 A.D.3d 521, 934 N.Y.S.2d 312 [1st Dept.2011] ). The remaining offenses were similarly established by the evidence and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom.


Summaries of

In re Kenrick C.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Oct 25, 2016
143 A.D.3d 600 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
Case details for

In re Kenrick C.

Case Details

Full title:In re Kenrick C., Appellant. Presentment Agency.

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: Oct 25, 2016

Citations

143 A.D.3d 600 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
40 N.Y.S.3d 64
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 6954

Citing Cases

Irena K. v. Francesco S.

We acknowledge that she may have been afraid or uncomfortable. Nevertheless, her testimony fails to establish…

Elizabeth F. v. Wilfredo F.

is sufficiently complete to allow this Court to make an independent factual review and draw its own…