Opinion
01-13-2016
In the Matter of RUHUL S. (Anonymous).
Lisa Lewis, Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellant. Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Richard Dearing and Max McCann of counsel), for respondent.
Lisa Lewis, Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellant.
Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Richard Dearing and Max McCann of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Terrence McElrath, J.), dated August 21, 2014. The order of disposition, insofar as appealed from, adjudicated Ruhul S. a juvenile delinquent. The appeal brings up for review a fact-finding order of that court (Emily M. Olshansky, J.) dated June 25, 2013, which found that Ruhul S. committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crime of sexual abuse in the second degree.
ORDERED that the order of disposition is affirmed insofar as appealed from, 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, that the appellant committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crime of sexual abuse in the second degree (Penal Law § 130.60[2] ). Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see Matter of Trevor S., 132 A.D.3d 685, 686, 18 N.Y.S.3d 81 ; cf. CPL 470.15[5] ), we nevertheless accord deference to the fact-finder'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 ; see also 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 with respect to the sustained charge of the petition was not against the weight of the evidence (see Family Ct. Act § 342.2[2] ; see also People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633, 644–645, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902 ).
BALKIN, J.P., DICKERSON, MILLER and HINDS–RADIX, JJ., concur.