Opinion
2012-01-31
In the Matter of TYHEEM W. (Anonymous), appellant.
Geanine Towers, Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellant. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Francis F. Caputo and Scott Shorr of counsel), for respondent.
Geanine Towers, Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellant. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Francis F. Caputo and Scott Shorr of counsel), for respondent.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., RANDALL T. ENG, PLUMMER E. LOTT, and SANDRA L. SGROI, JJ.
In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, Tyheem W. appeals from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Elkins, J.), dated January 11, 2011, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court dated November 24, 2010, made after a hearing, finding that the appellant committed (1) acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crime of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and (2) unlawful possession of weapons by persons under 16 (two counts), adjudged him to be a juvenile delinquent, and placed him on probation for a period of 18 months. The appeal brings up for review the fact-finding order dated November 24, 2010.
ORDERED that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
As a mere passenger, the appellant lacked standing to challenge the search of a lawfully stopped livery cab with respect to which he demonstrated no legitimate expectation of privacy ( see People v. Robinson, 38 A.D.3d 572, 573, 832 N.Y.S.2d 585; People v. Ballard, 16 A.D.3d 697, 698, 794 N.Y.S.2d 60). Moreover, the appellant did not have automatic standing, since the presentment agency was not solely relying on the statutory presumption of Penal Law § 265.15(3)(a) ( see People v. Millan, 69 N.Y.2d 514, 520, 516 N.Y.S.2d 168, 508 N.E.2d 903; People v. Robinson, 38 A.D.3d at 572, 832 N.Y.S.2d 585; People v. Fredericks, 234 A.D.2d 472, 473, 651 N.Y.S.2d 139; People v. Carter, 199 A.D.2d 817, 819, 606 N.Y.S.2d 786, affd. 86 N.Y.2d 721, 631 N.Y.S.2d 116, 655 N.E.2d 157).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the presentment agency ( see Matter of David H., 69 N.Y.2d 792, 513 N.Y.S.2d 111, 505 N.E.2d 621; People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), 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 criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and that he committed two counts of unlawful possession of weapons by persons under 16 ( see Penal Law §§ 265.00[15], 265.03[3]; § 265.05; Matter of Macye Mc., 82 A.D.3d 892, 918 N.Y.S.2d 542; Matter of Darnell C., 66 A.D.3d 771, 887 N.Y.S.2d 211). Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence ( cf. CPL 470.15[5]; People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1), we nevertheless 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, 887 N.Y.S.2d 211; cf. People v. Mateo, 2 N.Y.3d 383, 779 N.Y.S.2d 399, 811 N.E.2d 1053, cert. denied 542 U.S. 946, 124 S.Ct. 2929, 159 L.Ed.2d 828; 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 ( cf. People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902).