Opinion
2018-03825 Docket No. D-14539/17
05-08-2019
In the MATTER OF MOHAMMED A. (Anonymous), Appellant.
Janet E. Sabel, New York, N.Y. (Dawne A. Mitchell and Marcia Egger of counsel) for appellant. Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Fay Ng and Deborah E. Wassel of counsel), for respondent.
Janet E. Sabel, New York, N.Y. (Dawne A. Mitchell and Marcia Egger of counsel) for appellant.
Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Fay Ng and Deborah E. Wassel of counsel), for respondent.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., JOSEPH J. MALTESE, COLLEEN D. DUFFY, FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, JJ.
DECISION & ORDERORDERED that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The appellant was accused of stealing the complainant's bicycle. Following a fact-finding hearing, he was found to have committed acts, which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of robbery in the third degree, grand larceny in the fourth degree, and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree.
The appellant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his identity as the perpetrator of the subject theft is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Moore , 118 A.D.3d 916, 917, 988 N.Y.S.2d 80 ). In any event, viewing the evidence at the fact-finding hearing 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, that the appellant was the person who committed the acts at issue (see Matter of Maximus G. , 165 A.D.3d 660, 661, 85 N.Y.S.3d 111 ; Matter of Aaliyah R. , 144 A.D.3d 923, 42 N.Y.S.3d 185 ). Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence, we nevertheless accord great deference to the factfinder's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see Matter of Maximus G. , 165 A.D.3d at 662, 85 N.Y.S.3d 111 ; Matter of Roberto C.E.-C. , 160 A.D.3d 851, 852, 74 N.Y.S.3d 352 ). Upon reviewing the record, we are satisfied that the Family Court's fact-finding determination was not against the weight of the evidence.
The Family Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the appellant's request for a missing witness inference. The appellant failed to demonstrate that the uncalled witnesses had material knowledge or were under the presentment agency's control (see People v. Savinon , 100 N.Y.2d 192, 197, 761 N.Y.S.2d 144, 791 N.E.2d 401 ; People v. Gonzalez , 68 N.Y.2d 424, 427–428, 509 N.Y.S.2d 796, 502 N.E.2d 583 ).
MASTRO, J.P., MALTESE, DUFFY and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.