In re Anthony D

3 Citing cases

  1. Matter of Manuel W

    279 A.D.2d 662 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)   Cited 17 times

    The order is affirmed. We are unpersuaded that Family Court's determinations after the fact-finding hearing were against the weight of the evidence (see, Matter of Anthony D., 237 A.D.2d 706, 708). According to respondent, Family Court erred in crediting the testimony of three witnesses who identified respondent as the individual who stole the automobile since they allegedly made prior inconsistent or false statements to the police concerning the incident.

  2. Matter of Anthony D

    274 A.D.2d 727 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)   Cited 3 times
    Holding no credit due on OCFS sentence for time served in state jail because the "unrelated criminal charges culminated in a conviction," but not stating whether conviction occurred prior to expiration of OCFS sentence

    Crew III, J.P. In July 1996, respondent was adjudicated to be a juvenile delinquent and placed in the custody of the local Department of Social Services (see, 237 A.D.2d 706). Respondent's placement in this regard subsequently was terminated, following which respondent was placed in the custody of the State Office of Children and Family Services (hereinafter petitioner). Various extensions of placement thereafter were granted.

  3. Matter of Joseph A.

    244 A.D.2d 724 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)   Cited 12 times

    The second victim, age 10, testified that on December 22, 1995, respondent grabbed her, pushed her on her back on the bus seat, pulled her shirt up, kissed her and then held his hand over her mouth and touched her in her "frontal privates", which she indicated to mean her vaginal area. Fundamentally, respondent's purpose of sexual gratification may be inferred from his conduct ( see, Matter of Olivia YY., 209 A.D.2d 892; People v. Estela, 136 A.D.2d 728, lv denied 71 N.Y.2d 895) and we conclude that, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to petitioner, all of the elements of sexual abuse in the first degree were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. We are similarly unpersuaded that Family Court's determination was against the weight of the evidence ( see, Matter of Anthony D., 237 A.D.2d 706). It is fundamental law that Family Court, as the sole trier of fact, determines the credibility of witnesses and resolves disputed questions of fact ( see, Matter of Dakota EE., 209 A.D.2d 782, 783). Its determination should be afforded the same weight given a jury verdict ( see, Matter of Frederick QQ., 209 A.D.2d 832, lv denied 85 N.Y.2d 802) and will be set aside only when it is clearly unsupported by the record ( see, Matter of Deejai S., 220 A.D.2d 514, 515). Here, respondent's challenge to the truthfulness of the victims' testimony is unpersuasive, and his reference to testimony that tended to support a contrary conclusion merely identifies credibility issues that were presented for Family Court's resolution.