Opinion
1999-10358
April 30, 2001
May 21, 2001
In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, the appeal is from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Hepner, J.), dated October 15, 1999, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court, dated July 2, 1999, 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 third degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, adjudged him to be a juvenile deliquent 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 July 2, 1999.
Karen Elizabeth Morth, New York, N.Y., for appellant.
Michael D. Hess, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Elizabeth S. Natrella and Pamela Seider Dolgow of counsel; Todd Garber on the brief), for respondent.
LAWRENCE J. BRACKEN, P.J., CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, NANCY E. SMITH and BARRY A. COZIER, JJ.
ORDERED that the appeal from so much of the order of disposition as placed the appellant with the New York State Office of Children and Family Services is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order of disposition is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the presentment agency ( see, Matter of David H., 69 N.Y.2d 792, 793; Matter of Aulden M., 226 A.D.2d 536, cf., People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to support the determination made in the fact-finding order. Moreover, 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 fact, which saw and heard the witnesses ( see, Matter of Kiheem T., 229 A.D.2d 545; cf., People v. Gaimari, 176 N.Y. 84, 94). Its determination should be accorded great weight 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, we are satisfied that the findings of fact were not against the weight of the evidence (cf., CPL 470.15).
The appellant was not entitled to a missing-witness charge ( see, Matter of Paul N., 244 A.D.2d 488; cf., People v. Kitching, 78 N.Y.2d 532 ; People v. Antoneddy, 226 A.D.2d 549).
The appellant's challenge to his placement with the New York State Office of Children and Family services is rendered academic, as he has already completed the placement ( see, Matter of Charlene J., 280 A.D.2d 671; [Feb. 26, 2001]; Matter of Crandell M, 266 A.D.2d 548; Matter of Carlos S., 243 A.D.2d 569; Matter of Ricardo R., 220 A.D.2d 431).
The appellant's remaining contention is without merit.
BRACKEN, P.J., O'BRIEN, SMITH and COZIER, JJ., concur.