Opinion
07-13-2016
In the Matter of CHRISTIAN C. (Anonymous), appellant.
Arza Feldman, Uniondale, NY (Steven Feldman of counsel), for appellant. Dennis M. Brown, County Attorney, Central Islip, NY (Danielle N. Guida of counsel), for respondent.
Arza Feldman, Uniondale, NY (Steven Feldman of counsel), for appellant. Dennis M. Brown, County Attorney, Central Islip, NY (Danielle N. Guida of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal from an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Richard Hoffman, J.), dated August 18, 2015. The order of fact-finding and disposition, after fact-finding and dispositional hearings, inter alia, found that Christian C. had committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crime of sexual misconduct, and adjudicated him a juvenile delinquent.
ORDERED that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The appellant's contention that he was deprived of his right to a speedy dispositional hearing is unpreserved for appellate review (see Matter of Jacob LL., 129 A.D.3d 1407, 1408, 12 N.Y.S.3d 368 ; Matter of Michael P., 213 A.D.2d 717, 718, 624 N.Y.S.2d 952 ) and, in any event, is without merit (see Family Ct. Act § 350.1 ; Matter of Andre M., 299 A.D.2d 967, 968, 750 N.Y.S.2d 719 ). 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 that the appellant committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crime of sexual misconduct (Penal Law § 130.20 ). Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see Matter of Tiyana D.R., 130 A.D.3d 833, 834, 13 N.Y.S.3d 528 ; cf. CPL 470.15[5] ), we accord deference to the factfinder's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see Matter of Darnell C., 66 A.D.3d 771, 772, 887 N.Y.S.2d 211 ; cf. People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 ). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the Family Court's fact-finding determination was not against the weight of the evidence (see Family Ct. Act § 342.2[2] ; cf. People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633, 644–645, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902 ).
RIVERA, J.P., BALKIN, HINDS–RADIX and BARROS, JJ., concur.