Opinion
2014-09539 Docket No. E-05099-12.
02-17-2016
In the Matter of DANIEL J. (Anonymous), appellant.
Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, N.Y. (Tamara A. Steckler and Raymond E. Rogers of counsel), for appellant. Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Pamela Seider Dolgow and Janet L. Zaleon of counsel), for respondent.
Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, N.Y. (Tamara A. Steckler and Raymond E. Rogers of counsel), for appellant.
Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Pamela Seider Dolgow and Janet L. Zaleon of counsel), for respondent.
Opinion
Appeal from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Richmond County (Helene D. Sacco, J.), dated September 29, 2014. The order of disposition, insofar as appealed from, adjudicated Daniel J. a juvenile delinquent. The appeal brings up for review an order of fact-finding of that court dated June 12, 2014, which, after a hearing, found that Daniel J. committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of criminal sexual act in the first degree and sexual abuse in the first degree.
ORDERED that the order of disposition is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the appellant's contention, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in allowing the complainant, then age seven, to testify as a sworn witness. After a hearing at which the court considered the ability of the witness to understand the difference between truth and falsity, the legal and moral consequences of lying, and the importance of telling the truth at the proceeding, the court determined that the witness could do so (see Matter of Marquis M., 1 A.D.3d 515, 516, 767 N.Y.S.2d 239; Matter of James B., 262 A.D.2d 480, 480–481, 692 N.Y.S.2d 417; Matter of Joseph C., 185 A.D.2d 883, 586 N.Y.S.2d 1009; Family Ct. Act § 343.12; CPL 60.20).
The appellant contends that the Family Court's fact-finding determination was against the weight of the evidence. In conducting our independent review of the weight of the evidence, we accord great deference to the opportunity of the trier of fact to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see Matter of Keir B., 115 A.D.3d 855, 856, 982 N.Y.S.2d 347; Matter of Danasia Mc., 94 A.D.3d 1122, 1124, 943 N.Y.S.2d 549; Matter of Hasan C., 59 A.D.3d 617, 617–618, 873 N.Y.S.2d 709; cf. People v. Mateo, 2 N.Y.3d 383, 410, 779 N.Y.S.2d 399, 811 N.E.2d 1053; People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672). Upon reviewing the record, we are satisfied that the Family Court's fact-finding determination that the appellant committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of criminal sexual act in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.503 ) and sexual abuse in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.653 ) was not against the weight of the evidence (see Family Ct. Act § 342.22; Matter of Darnell C., 66 A.D.3d 771, 772, 887 N.Y.S.2d 211; cf. People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902).
Accordingly, we affirm the order of disposition insofar as appealed from.