From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In the Matter of Anthony S

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 27, 2003
305 A.D.2d 689 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

2002-07466

Submitted May 8, 2003.

May 27, 2003.

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 (Lubow, J.), dated July 30, 2002, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court dated June 14, 2002, made after a hearing, finding that the appellant committed an act, which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crime of attempted assault in the second degree, adjudged him to be a juvenile delinquent and placed him with the New York State Office of Children and Family Services for a period of 18 months. The appeal brings up for review the fact-finding order dated June 14, 2002.

Monica Drinane, New York, N.Y. (Marcia Egger and Maria Chiu of counsel), for appellant.

Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Pamela Seider Dolgow and Deborah Weiss of counsel), for respondent.

Before: ANITA R. FLORIO, J.P., GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, SANDRA L. TOWNES, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The appellant did not preserve the issue of legal sufficiency of the evidence for appellate review (cf. CPL 470.05; see People v. Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245, 250). In any event, the evidence was legally sufficient to establish that the appellant's conduct, which occurred on what the appellant knew to be school property and included throwing two punches toward the face of the complainant, an Assistant Principal, and scratching her under the eye, was committed with the intent to cause physical injury (see Penal Law §§ 10.00, 110.00, 120.05[a]; Matter of Marcel F., 233 A.D.2d 442). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual power of review, we are satisfied that the Family Court properly credited the testimony of the presentment agency's witnesses, and that its findings were not against the weight of the evidence (cf. CPL 470.15).

The appellant's remaining contention is without merit.

FLORIO, J.P., KRAUSMAN, GOLDSTEIN and TOWNES, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

In the Matter of Anthony S

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 27, 2003
305 A.D.2d 689 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

In the Matter of Anthony S

Case Details

Full title:IN THE MATTER OF ANTHONY S. (ANONYMOUS), appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: May 27, 2003

Citations

305 A.D.2d 689 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
759 N.Y.S.2d 891

Citing Cases

In the Matter of Brittanie G

The evidence establishes that respondent struck a school administrator on the head with a telephone receiver.…

In re Shamarri

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the presentment agency ( see Family Ct Act § 342.2;…