Opinion
11-16-2016
In the Matter of AALIYAH R. (Anonymous), appellant.
Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, NY (Tamara A. Steckler and John A. Newbery of counsel), for appellant. Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, NY (Richard P. Dearing and Qian Julie Wang of counsel), for respondent.
Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, NY (Tamara A. Steckler and John A. Newbery of counsel), for appellant.
Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, NY (Richard P. Dearing and Qian Julie Wang of counsel), for respondent.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, JEFFREY A. COHEN, and ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.
Appeal from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Queens County (Robert I. Caloras, J.), dated November 24, 2015. The order of disposition adjudicated Aaliyah R. a juvenile delinquent and placed her on probation for a period of 12 months. The appeal brings up for review an order of fact-finding of that court dated October 6, 2015, which, after a hearing, found that Aaliyah R. committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of grand larceny in the fourth degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree.ORDERED that the order of disposition is affirmed, 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, 513 N.Y.S.2d 111, 505 N.E.2d 621 ), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, the appellant's identity as the person who committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of grand larceny in the fourth degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree (see Matter of Jarell W., 137 A.D.3d 1154, 1154–1155, 26 N.Y.S.3d 877 ; Matter of Jamal G., 127 A.D.3d 1081, 1082, 7 N.Y.S.3d 500 ; Matter of Anthony A., 121 A.D.3d 885, 886, 994 N.Y.S.2d 384 ; see also People v. Calabria, 3 N.Y.3d 80, 82, 783 N.Y.S.2d 321, 816 N.E.2d 1257 ; People v. Vecchio, 31 A.D.3d 674, 674, 818 N.Y.S.2d 290 ; cf. People v. Foster, 64 N.Y.2d 1144, 490 N.Y.S.2d 726, 480 N.E.2d 340 ; People v. Ledwon, 153 N.Y. 10, 46 N.E. 1046 ).
“In evaluating a contention that the evidence supporting a fact-finding at a juvenile delinquency proceeding is against the weight of the evidence, a court must first determine whether a different fact-finding would not have been unreasonable” (Matter of Danielle B., 94 A.D.3d 757, 758, 941 N.Y.S.2d 685 ). “If the court determines that a different finding would not have been unreasonable, it must then ‘weigh the relative probative force of conflicting testimony and the relative strength of conflicting inferences that may be drawn from the testimony’ ” (id. at 758, 941 N.Y.S.2d 685, quoting People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 ). “ ‘If it appears that the trier of fact has failed to give the evidence the weight it should be accorded, then the appellate court may set aside the verdict’ ” (Matter of Danielle B., 94 A.D.3d at 758, 941 N.Y.S.2d 685, quoting People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d at 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 ). “In conducting our weight of the evidence review, we have a responsibility to affirmatively review the record; independently assess all of the proof; substitute our own credibility determinations for those made by the Family Court in an appropriate case; determine whether the Family Court's determination was factually correct; and acquit the appellant if we are not convinced that the Family Court's adjudication of the appellant as a juvenile delinquent was proven beyond a reasonable doubt” (Matter of Trevor S., 141 A.D.3d 666, 667, 35 N.Y.S.3d 697 ; see Matter of Shannel P., 137 A.D.3d 1039, 1041, 27 N.Y.S.3d 195 ). Nevertheless, in performing a weight of the evidence review, “this Court accords great deference to the factfinder's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear their testimony, and observe their demeanor” (Matter of Danielle B., 94 A.D.3d at 758, 941 N.Y.S.2d 685 ; see Matter of Tyshawn B., 141 A.D.3d 714, 715, 34 N.Y.S.3d 635 ).
Here, upon our independent review of the record, we are satisfied that the Family Court's fact-finding determination with regard to the appellant's identity was not against the weight of the evidence (see Matter of Jarell W., 137 A.D.3d at 1155, 26 N.Y.S.3d 877; Matter of Jamal G., 127 A.D.3d at 1082, 7 N.Y.S.3d 500 ; Matter of Anthony A., 121 A.D.3d at 886, 994 N.Y.S.2d 384 ; cf. Matter of Shannel P., 137 A.D.3d at 1041–1042, 27 N.Y.S.3d 195; Matter of Kyle O., 205 A.D.2d 541, 542–543, 612 N.Y.S.2d 665 ).